Too many consortiums for Mr Fry (and us)?

[Window Cleaner]

I am actually quite amazed that in the space of 1 week,approximately 33%

of the time Mr Fry said we had available, we have ,or seem to have, achieved ...Nothing. If anything the situation seems to have become more confused.

[ottery st mary]

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

 

What will we do with our big baloon up there and that periphal eye centre.

 

Can we not sell off those two Trainers Woodward and Clifford and make a little more petty cash.

[Window Cleaner]

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

 

I don't think we actually own all of Staplewood, we own a part of it and the rest is leased to us.

[Legod Third Coming]

I am actually quite amazed that in the space of 1 week,approximately 33%

of the time Mr Fry said we had available, we have ,or seem to have, achieved ...Nothing. If anything the situation seems to have become more confused.

 

How do we know? He could well be in advanced talks with two or three parties... Just because there is idle, misinformed speculation on here, don't forget Fry is running the company and trying to sell it...

[Fitzhugh Fella]

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.

 

If that was his intention Mark, why did he not just lend the club the money for them to buy it in the first place? I am going off memory here, although I did speak to Mr Corbett in the late 80s, and I seem to remember there being quite a long period of time before the land transferred ownership but would not put my house on it, admittedly. The point was that he could have sold it to other parties for a lot more than he sold it to Saints, so it was an act for which we should be grateful, nio matter how long ago it was. As for MC I think she only came to be a director because she was asked as part of Mike Wilde's PR stunt to impress the fans. I haven't spoken to her since the resignations of the Board but I would be really surprised if she had any plans or desires to return in a director's capacity.

 

I quite agree with your last paragraph - while I am not shedding tears at the apparent demise of the PLC, I am concerned that Fry will - in the fans' eyes - possibly choose the "wrong" consortium.

[Window Cleaner]

How do we know? He could well be in advanced talks with two or three parties... Just because there is idle, misinformed speculation on here, don't forget Fry is running the company and trying to sell it...

 

Well you know what they say, No news is bad news.

The fact that McMenemy is reported to have seen Mr Fry twice is worrying,

unless of course it's Souness that he's involved with and not...Crouch et al.

I just have the nasty feeling that Crouch will try to get his hands on the train set again, whether he has the money to do it or not, it seems to be something of an obsession with him...not that Rupert's any better either.I just feel that all the usual suspects are coming up with their usual "aneries" and valuable time is being lost getting on with serious channels.

[NickG]

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.

 

 

 

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?!

 

 

 

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...

 

think outside the box? We don't have the info of where the box is! I said its a simplistic view but the more money someone offers is one measurement of their intent, maybe you should think about what I said before writing it off

[Fitzhugh Fella]

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

Who would you prefer then ?

 

Tbh SlickMick - the points business is of secondary interest to me right now - in the greater scale of things we could make up that 10 points in a month but being sold to a unscrupulous consortium will take longer than a month to put right.

[Legod Third Coming]

Well you know what they say, No news is bad news.

The fact that McMenemy is reported to have seen Mr Fry twice is worrying,

unless of course it's Souness that he's involved with and not...Crouch et al.

I just have the nasty feeling that Crouch will try to get his hands on the train set again, whether he has the money to do it or not, it seems to be something of an obsession with him...not that Rupert's any better either.I just feel that all the usual suspects are coming up with their usual "aneries" and valuable time is being lost getting on with serious channels.

 

FWIW, I am spending the weekend with one of Deloittes top administrators and plan to quiz him (bore him to death) explaining to me what process the admins really go through in a football deal. Although he was not directly involved, he is a Leeds fan and good pals with the guys who did Leeds (small world insolvency practitioners).

 

What I do know is that (and he gets well paid for it) he generally is working bloody hard trying to turn companies around, is no mug when it comes to spotting who is/isn't a 'likely sort' and has no axe to grind with any party.

 

One thing you do have to accept is that the current management often end up back running the company. Sometimes in a pre-pack and sometimes with new finance/backing or in a new guise. It is the administrators duty to listen to these people since they (unlike new parties) do have direct experience of running the business and may simply have made some un-fixable mistakes...

 

Whatever, their duty is to get the best deal for the creditors and generally they want to sell the business as a going concern. It serves no purpose to anyone to liquidate.

[Saint 76er]

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

 

Ah, you see that's where Rod Stewart comes into it.

 

We know he has the requisite garden, having trained there previously under his wee Scottish pal.....

[Bezza]

Why is there always so much secrecy with Saints????

Why dont these prospective consortiums reveal themselves to us the fans and start championing their cause. Didnt this happen with Leeds? If consortium "A" get the backing of the fans, this may hold some weight with the Administrators????

[Amesbury Saint]

Why is there always so much secrecy with Saints????

Why dont these prospective consortiums reveal themselves to us the fans and start championing their cause. Didnt this happen with Leeds? If consortium "A" get the backing of the fans, this may hold some weight with the Administrators????

 

Good point.

 

they want more than 16,000 to turn up for the next match. Lets start have some positive PR - who are the consoirtiums - what is their vision

[Nineteen Canteen]

Ah, you see that's where Rod Stewart comes into it.

 

We know he has the requisite garden, having trained there previously under his wee Scottish pal.....

 

Would be better than any local 'Faces'.

[docker-p]

Would be better than any local 'Faces'.

 

OOooohhh so close nineteen.

You nearly got a post in without mentioning or alluding to LC or LM.

Keep going to the therapist and try agin next week.

[Junior Mullet]

All those IDIOTS.

 

Reserve judgement mate. You'd be happy plodding along would you? huh

[um pahars]

I am going off memory here, although I did speak to Mr Corbett in the late 80s, and I seem to remember there being quite a long period of time before the land transferred ownership but would not put my house on it, admittedly.

 

Sadly Duncan it would appear that some people are even willing to tarnish the name and reputation of a fine gentleman from our past in order to score some cheap points in the current situation.

 

I have seen it mentioned that some believe that Jacksons Farm was talked up by some who wanted Mary Corbett to gain some extra kudos from this benevolent act by her father.

 

Well forgive me for saying this, but wouldn't you be rather stupid to assume Mary Corbett has uber status just because of benevolent acts by har father 50 years earlier????

 

John Corbett is deserving of his praise, by why would/should that translate into praise for Mary Corbett - a ridiculous notion. In fact I would call it slightly paranoid that some think benevolent acts of 50 years ago are being used by some to give them some kudos in the current time!!!!!

 

Mary Corbett never used "Jackson's Farm" to gain any kudos (and if she tried to, then she should have been laughed at), in fact, in the first interview I heard her give, she was upfront, open and honest that it was not a donation, but instead it was sold to the Club on favourable terms.

 

From the research I have found, John Corbett played a major part in keeping this Club afloat in the 1950's when we slid back in to Dvision 3 South, often paying the players wages from his own pocket (there are some very interesting quotes from Brian Hunt reflecting on this period about how John Corbett effectively saved this Club from going back to being semi-professional).

 

I also understand that the sale Jacksons Farm to the Club was done on very favourable terms for the Club, at cost price and interest free a number of years after John Corbett first acquired it (therefore hardly favourable to himself).

 

Judge Mary Corbett by her own deeds and actions, but trying to downplay the service given by her father, because you believe (incorrectly IMHO) that she is getting some mileage out of it is somewhat cheap IMHO.

[John B]

Sadly Duncan it would appear that some people are even willing to tarnish the name and reputation of a fine gentleman from our past in order to score some cheap points in the current situation.

 

I have seen it mentioned that some believe that Jacksons Farm was talked up by some who wanted Mary Corbett to gain some extra kudos from this benevolent act by her father.

 

Well forgive me for saying this, but wouldn't you be rather stupid to assume Mary Corbett has uber status just because of benevolent acts by har father 50 years earlier????

 

John Corbett is deserving of his praise, by why would/should that translate into praise for Mary Corbett - a ridiculous notion. In fact I would call it slightly paranoid that some think benevolent acts of 50 years ago are being used by some to give them some kudos in the current time!!!!!

 

Mary Corbett never used "Jackson's Farm" to gain any kudos (and if she tried to, then she should have been laughed at), in fact, in the first interview I heard her give, she was upfront, open and honest that it was not a donation, but instead it was sold to the Club on favourable terms.

 

From the research I have found, John Corbett played a major part in keeping this Club afloat in the 1950's when we slid back in to Dvision 3 South, often paying the players wages from his own pocket (there are some very interesting quotes from Brian Hunt reflecting on this period about how John Corbett effectively saved this Club from going back to being semi-professional).

 

I also understand that the sale Jacksons Farm to the Club was done on very favourable terms for the Club, at cost price and interest free a number of years after John Corbett first acquired it (therefore hardly favourable to himself).

 

Judge Mary Corbett by her own deeds and actions, but trying to downplay the service given by her father, because you believe (incorrectly IMHO) that she is getting some mileage out of it is somewhat cheap IMHO.

 

You are right the whole thing about complaining about John Corbett is ridiculous and the only crime if that what it is about Mary is that her dislike for Lowe led her to believe that Wilde was the savior.

 

 

A serious misjudgement I would have thought but probably done in the best interests of the club

[SaintRichmond]

I am actually quite amazed that in the space of 1 week,approximately 33%

of the time Mr Fry said we had available, we have ,or seem to have, achieved ...Nothing. If anything the situation seems to have become more confused.

 

Agreed ...

 

Even assuming that their are one or two "serious" enquiries, no-one is going to proceed, or " firm up" on anything until they know WHAT Division we are going to be in in 2009/10

 

And, until the League get down off the fence and say whether we are to be docked 10 points THIS season .... the scenario only gets worse

[SaintRichmond]

I am actually quite amazed that in the space of 1 week,approximately 33%

of the time Mr Fry said we had available, we have ,or seem to have, achieved ...Nothing. If anything the situation seems to have become more confused.

 

Agreed ...

 

Even assuming that their are one or two "serious" enquiries, no-one is going to proceed, or " firm up" on anything until they know WHAT Division we are going to be in in 2009/10

 

And, until the League get down off the fence and say whether we are to be docked 10 points THIS season .... the scenario only gets worse

[dubai_phil]

Why is there always so much secrecy with Saints????

Why dont these prospective consortiums reveal themselves to us the fans and start championing their cause. Didnt this happen with Leeds? If consortium "A" get the backing of the fans, this may hold some weight with the Administrators????

 

NDA's...

 

Also there are 35 bidders, that would mean only 1 can (hopefully) win. If any of them are professional businessmen, they would not like to be subject to the media scrutiny that publicity would bring and forever be referred to as having been a FAILURE..

 

as in Paul Allen failed in his attempt to buy Saints and that has put doubt in his ability to be a rich person for ever.......

 

Oh and Windows - I guess that you will find that the Admins had a lot of work to do to get all the facts and figures together to actually be able to tell the possible bidders who owed what to whom.

[sadoldgit]

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. :-)

 

Invicta for whatever reasons people decided to stay away (and lets face it, many did because they didn't fancy CCC football otherwise they would have come back when Lowe went the first time) 19C is right. A large number of fans also decided that it was better to see the club on its knees than have Lowe at the helm, and they have got their wish.

No of course it is not ALL the fans fault, but as a dog is for life not just for Christmas perhaps that should be the same for the club? What will happened in the future if we stay afloat but we get another CEO who the fans decide they don't like? The club needs to be bigger than any individual. Customers, fans (a rose by any other name...) have the right to vote with their feet. Trouble is, if they withdraw their financial support in large numbers they could end up without a club to support! Look around you, there are many "hard suffering" fans at many clubs who carry on going no matter what. We have no God given right to exist let along compete in he top flight. The word "support" is unconditional. You either do or you don't. The more people that do the easier it is for the club to survive.

 

There have been people on here in the past saying that they will no longer go to St Marys but will continue to go to way matches - quite happy to support our competitors financially but not their own club. The same people slagged of the Board for letting players like Rasiak go to our competitors - go figure?

 

If people don't want to turn up that is their choice, but they also must realise that the club only survives on the patrionage of its support base.

[um pahars]

but they also must realise that the club only survives on the patrionage of its support base.

 

And as we have so clearly seen in recent years, even if the fans turn up up in sufficient numbers and the income is healthy, then the Club will only survive if it is run in responsible, competent and efficient manner.

 

It doesn't matter how many are coming thorugh the turnstiles if those in charge continue to make mistakes and run the Club poorly.

 

PS Here's another bit on why blaming the fans is somewhat irrelevant:

 

We're not a proper big club, we're a mid ranking provincial club who can pull in 30,000 in the Premiership and anywhere between 15,000 to 25,000 in the second tier (depending on a number of factors).

 

I really struggle to understand why people cannot comprehend that attendances are not fixed and they will indeed vary depending on success, the division we're playing in, the opposition, prices and a whole myriad of other factors.

 

We probably have something like 14,000 hard core supporters (just as every club has its hard core). After that just like any other club (with the odd exception) our attendances will only increase if the next tranche of supporters see a reason to come.

 

You can whinge, whine, scream and stamp your feet as much as you want, but that's just the way it is.

 

The Club has no divine right to expect supporters to turn up, in fact as is the case in every City, town and community up and down the country those that attend football matches are the minority.

Edited 10 April, 2009 by um pahars

[Victor]

Well you know what they say, No news is bad news.

The fact that McMenemy is reported to have seen Mr Fry twice is worrying,

unless of course it's Souness that he's involved with and not...Crouch et al.

I just have the nasty feeling that Crouch will try to get his hands on the train set again, whether he has the money to do it or not, it seems to be something of an obsession with him...not that Rupert's any better either.I just feel that all the usual suspects are coming up with their usual "aneries" and valuable time is being lost getting on with serious channels.

 

Well, actually what they say is "no news is GOOD news".

 

Which is bad news for your opinion, but good news for the rest of us who are sitting here waiting for news that will surely come when there is something to tell. Just be patient, because something certainly is happening.

[benjii]

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.

 

There will be a negative pledge in the loan documents which prohibits it, so unless they consent, they effectively do have the right to block it by threatening to take action upon the default if the negative pledge is breached.

 

My understanding is that the overdraft is unsecured. Probably why Lowe feels justified in calling the bank "irresponsible" and why their actions seem so strange at this moment in time.

 

Your other points are correct in as much as the banks could have come to an agreement regarding a priority position (and indeed if Barclays do have security, most certainly will have). I agree that usually you would expect all the companies in the group to be part of the security structure. Given, however, that the administrators seem pretty confident of avoiding the points deduction, something leads me to believe that this might not be the case.

Edited 10 April, 2009 by benjii

[up and away]

Invicta for whatever reasons people decided to stay away (and lets face it, many did because they didn't fancy CCC football otherwise they would have come back when Lowe went the first time) 19C is right. A large number of fans also decided that it was better to see the club on its knees than have Lowe at the helm, and they have got their wish.

No of course it is not ALL the fans fault, but as a dog is for life not just for Christmas perhaps that should be the same for the club? What will happened in the future if we stay afloat but we get another CEO who the fans decide they don't like? The club needs to be bigger than any individual. Customers, fans (a rose by any other name...) have the right to vote with their feet. Trouble is, if they withdraw their financial support in large numbers they could end up without a club to support! Look around you, there are many "hard suffering" fans at many clubs who carry on going no matter what. We have no God given right to exist let along compete in he top flight. The word "support" is unconditional. You either do or you don't. The more people that do the easier it is for the club to survive.

 

There have been people on here in the past saying that they will no longer go to St Marys but will continue to go to way matches - quite happy to support our competitors financially but not their own club. The same people slagged of the Board for letting players like Rasiak go to our competitors - go figure?

 

If people don't want to turn up that is their choice, but they also must realise that the club only survives on the patrionage of its support base.

 

This post sums everything up for me in a nut shell. I never really had a problem with this stance previously, although wondering who those highlighted actually supported.

 

What I do find difficult to take is these same "fans" saying everything we should be doing to save our club! It's akin to turning up with a bucket of water to douse the dying embers.

[um pahars]

There will be a negative pledge in the loan documents which prohibits it, so unless they consent, they effectively do have the right to block it by threatening to take action upon the default if the negative pledge is breached.

 

My understanding is that the overdraft is unsecured. Probably why Lowe feels justified in calling the bank "irresponsible" and why their actions seem so strange at this moment in time.

 

Your other points are correct in as much as the banks could have come to an agreement regarding a priority position (and indeed if Barclays do have security, most certainly will have). I agree that usually you would expect all the companies in the group to be part of the security structure. Given, however, that the administrators seem pretty confident of avoiding the points deduction, something leads me to believe that this might not be the case.

 

 

Benjii, how do you interpret this from the 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.

 

Note 18

 

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

 

 

Doesn't this seem to indicate that the overdraft is secured????

 

No expert of course, but sort of looks like it to me.

[teamsaint]

I would be interested to know what Avivas position is.

If the club is sold lock stock and barrell. then presumably they will take whatever the stadium is valued at in any deal?

 

However, might they not have other options, such as negotiating debt for equity with any buyer, or perhaps even "buying back " an interest in the stadium, either as landlords, or to sell on to another landlord?

 

Any thoughts?

[benjii]

Benjii, how do you interpret this from the 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.

 

Note 18

 

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

 

 

Doesn't this seem to indicate that the overdraft is secured????

 

No expert of course, but sort of looks like it to me.

 

Lol - indeed it does!

 

My mistake.

[Weston Saint]

I would be interested to know what Avivas position is.

If the club is sold lock stock and barrell. then presumably they will take whatever the stadium is valued at in any deal?

 

However, might they not have other options, such as negotiating debt for equity with any buyer, or perhaps even "buying back " an interest in the stadium, either as landlords, or to sell on to another landlord?

 

Any thoughts?

 

They are unlikely to negotiate debt for equity. I believe the club may have tried that in January but Aviva not interested. I cannot see their position change now. They would have been aware how desperate our position was at that time.

 

I also believe they were approached by someone interested in buying SLH Group prior to Administration but the offer made was not acceptable.

 

On the question of Barclays, I believe they are a secure creditor as some have indicated. I am of the opinion that the same buyer for SLH approached Barclays with an "offer" on the discharge of the overdraft but were rebuffed by them because they were a secure creditor.

[Clapham Saint]

There will be a negative pledge in the loan documents which prohibits it, so unless they consent, they effectively do have the right to block it by threatening to take action upon the default if the negative pledge is breached.

 

My understanding is that the overdraft is unsecured. Probably why Lowe feels justified in calling the bank "irresponsible" and why their actions seem so strange at this moment in time.

 

Your other points are correct in as much as the banks could have come to an agreement regarding a priority position (and indeed if Barclays do have security, most certainly will have). I agree that usually you would expect all the companies in the group to be part of the security structure. Given, however, that the administrators seem pretty confident of avoiding the points deduction, something leads me to believe that this might not be the case.

 

Ah, in hindsight your probably right there.

 

I would still be amazed if Barclays were prepared to put out £6m completely unsecured though. I suspect that they may just be subordinated and so will be secured albeit not very well.

 

Anybody here have access to companies house? I can only log on from the office.

[benjii]

Benjii, how do you interpret this from the 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.

 

Note 18

 

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

 

 

Doesn't this seem to indicate that the overdraft is secured????

 

No expert of course, but sort of looks like it to me.

 

Ah, in hindsight your probably right there.

 

I would still be amazed if Barclays were prepared to put out £6m completely unsecured though.

 

Anybody here have access to companies house? I can only log on from the office.

 

It's ok - I've already been exposed as spouting a load of dross!

[Clapham Saint]

It's ok - I've already been exposed as spouting a load of dross!

 

To be honest I think we're probably both half right.

 

Aviva will have a fixed charge over the stadium. Co's Hse will show any charges held by Barclays.

 

If Aviva were smart when they took out their security then they would have taken a floating charge over other assets. This could rank before Barclays leaving Barclays with a debenture (and so technically secured) which is effectively worthless.

 

Without looking at the security documents we're not going to know for sure.

[Rational Rich]

Ah, in hindsight your probably right there.

 

I would still be amazed if Barclays were prepared to put out £6m completely unsecured though. I suspect that they may just be subordinated and so will be secured albeit not very well.

 

Anybody here have access to companies house? I can only log on from the office.

 

I would imagine that the barclays/aviva arrangements would be governed by a deed of priority or an intercreditor agreement, setting out exactly who gets what and in what order. Barclays will be secured and as pointed out above this is mentioned in the accounts.

 

To all those who think nothing is happening, I bet the Begbies team and probably working all hours finding a buyer, but these things take time and can get particularly complex. If they get a sale away by the end of the season they will have done very well IMHO

[ottery st mary]

With all the Financial whizz kidzz on this forum and this country still got into financial meltdown, let alone little ole Saints. Suggest you boyzz should have shouted louder....Where is jonah when you need him?

[SaintRobbie]

 

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 B for me everytime. IF the spectulators fail to gain success let them sell to more speculators. Local businessmen who care? No thanks. Wealthy neutrals speculating on SUCCESS? Yes please.

[Clapham Saint]

I would imagine that the barclays/aviva arrangements would be governed by a deed of priority or an intercreditor agreement, setting out exactly who gets what and in what order. Barclays will be secured and as pointed out above this is mentioned in the accounts.

 

To all those who think nothing is happening, I bet the Begbies team and probably working all hours finding a buyer, but these things take time and can get particularly complex. If they get a sale away by the end of the season they will have done very well IMHO

 

Agree. Negotiations are time consuming and any progress on any deal is meaningless until it is finalised. You can't expect the Administrator to give progress reports on negotiations which could come to nothing at any point.

 

When a deal is done I'm sure we'll know.:cool:

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Consortium B for me everytime. IF the spectulators fail to gain success let them sell to more speculators. Local businessmen who care? No thanks. Wealthy neutrals speculating on SUCCESS? Yes please.

 

 

I am hearing some disturbing news. I don't think Consortium A are interested any more.

I hear the boardroom was a bit of a bunfight last week.

My worse fears in my original post have been realised.

Edited 10 April, 2009 by Fitzhugh Fella

[ottery st mary]

The ghost of Rupert will not leave us alone.

[Amesbury Saint]

I am hearing some disturbing news. I don't think Consortium A are interested any more.

I hear the boardroom was a bit of a bunfight last week.

My worse fears in my original post have been realised.

 

Why is consortium A not interested?

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Why is consortium A not interested?

 

Perhaps they have lost their apetite after seeing the bunfight.

Perhaps they have realised football has moved on and they don't like what they see. Perhaps they were (in hindsight) never the right people to run the club.

Perhaps they have realised it's best just to be fans.

 

Perhaps I should never have got my hopes up.

 

Sorry to be kind of obtuse here but I am trying to tread delicately and will have to hope you can get my drift from reading between the lines.

 

I feel, if and when we do get bought, it will be from an outsider interest rather than someone already known, although this last bit is pure speculation from me.

[hypochondriac]

Perhaps they have lost their apetite after seeing the bunfight.

Perhaps they have realised football has moved on and they don't like what they see. Perhaps they were (in hindsight) never the right people to run the club.

Perhaps they have realised it's best just to be fans.

 

Perhaps I should never have got my hopes up.

 

Sorry to be kind of obtuse here but I am trying to tread delicately and will have to hope you can get my drift from reading between the lines.

 

I feel, if and when we do get bought, it will be from an outsider interest rather than someone already known, although this last bit is pure speculation from me.

 

Nothing wrong with that. It's a bit dramatic to say your worst fears have been realised. They clearly weren't the best option if they are put off by a bunfight. If they owned the club they could let in who they wanted so to be put off by something like that is a bit silly.

Edited 10 April, 2009 by hypochondriac

[Delmary]

Why is consortium A not interested?

Because they are not the leading bid????

[Professor]

Nineteen Canteen has explained exactly how things are. The administrator is only able to act in the interests of the creditors of SLH, and must get the best price he can for the company's assets. The ownership of SFC is one of those assets. The administrators cannot consider what is best for the future of the club, only how can they raise the most money from its sale. There is no absolute certainty that SFC can survive this process, and those who think administration is a good thing are seriously deluded. A new start is one possibility if the best bid comes from a committed owner, but so is winding up and leaving the league. Anyone who welcomed that risk must be a little deluded, because if we get out of this it will be as much due to luck as judgement.

[ottery st mary]

deluded..someone else keeps using that word proff...let me think.

[trousers]

I hear the boardroom was a bit of a bunfight last week.

 

Bunfight? As in more than one bidder met with Fry at the same time? Sounds like organized chaos to me. No wonder some decent people have seemingly lost the will.

[thefuriousb]

I am hearing some disturbing news. I don't think Consortium A are interested any more.

I hear the boardroom was a bit of a bunfight last week.

My worse fears in my original post have been realised.

 

If they are not interested anymore, does this mean that one or more of the 34 interested parties are more suitable to the administrator (the administrator being the one that they must impress most now we are at the disposal of our creditors)?

 

Your fears, I feel, were perhaps a tad idealistic and unrealistic - whilst well meant.

[hypochondriac]

If they are not interested anymore, does this mean that one or more of the 34 interested parties are more suitable to the administrator (the administrator being the one that they must impress most now we are at the disposal of our creditors)?

 

Your fears, I feel, were perhaps a tad idealistic and unrealistic - whilst well meant.

 

I'm still struggling to understand how someone could possibly make a profit from us without the team doing well.

[thefuriousb]

Bunfight? As in more than one bidder met with Fry at the same time? Sounds like organized chaos to me. No wonder some decent people have seemingly lost the will.

 

By having to compete with other interested parties?

 

Some have been slating Fry for not seeing enough of the bids with such little time to deal with.

 

Now he apparently sees as many as he can, he is putting off "decent people"?

 

We have a side that does not seem to have the fight, now we have prospective bidders with the same qualities.

[benjii]

Sorry, FF, what are you taling about?

 

A "bunfight" in the boardroom? Before Lowe left or after?

 

If before, then who gives a toss - he's history. If after, then the only people left in the boardroom are Dave Jones and the new chap - I doubt that's who you're refering to.

 

I think you either need to elaborate or not post this kind of thing as it is largely unintelligible.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Sorry, FF, what are you taling about?

 

A "bunfight" in the boardroom? Before Lowe left or after?

 

If before, then who gives a toss - he's history. If after, then the only people left in the boardroom are Dave Jones and the new chap - I doubt that's who you're refering to.

 

I think you either need to elaborate or not post this kind of thing as it is largely unintelligible.

 

 

At last Saturday's game, 18 consortiums were at the match. Either in the boardroom, directors box or overflowing into the stands. Madness, the sooner some of these goons get out of the way to let proper serious people through the better. Idiots like Jackson are messing things up and decent people are falling by the wayside. Hope that is intelligible enough for you.