If the Football Club is sold will the PLC stay in administration?

[trousers]

If the Football Club is sold will the PLC stay in administration?

 

If the answer to this is 'yes' wouldn't it blow the Football League 'forensic evidence' out of the water?

 

Of course, equally, if the PLC did come out of Administration upon the sale of the Football Club it would 'blow our cover', wouldn't it?

 

So, the question again....

 

If the Football Club is sold will the PLC stay in administration?

[Alanh]

The club will be sold as an asset of SLH and the debts of SLH will either be assumed by the buyer of the club, or will be paid off with the proceeds of the sale. SLH will probably be dissolved after the sale and so will not 'come out of administration'.

[krissyboy31]

I think once the assets have been sold, the Plc will be wound-up.

[SaintRobbie]

The plc will be dissolved. The wicked witch is dead.

[trousers]

The club will be sold as an asset of SLH and the debts of SLH will either be assumed by the buyer of the club, or will be paid off with the proceeds of the sale. SLH will probably be dissolved after the sale and so will not 'come out of administration'.

 

Cheers.

 

So does that enhance the Football League's stance, or ours, in the dispute over the rules?

Edited 24 April, 2009 by trousers

[mattyd]

Possible, the club is an assett owned by SLH. It could be sold seperately to the ground and then SLH can be liquidated or it could be sold together.

[bridge too far]

The club will be sold as an asset of SLH and the debts of SLH will either be assumed by the buyer of the club, or will be paid off with the proceeds of the sale. SLH will probably be dissolved after the sale and so will not 'come out of administration'.

 

Is that right? :confused:

 

Let's say, for argument's sake, that SLH is the parent company of:

 

SFC

SMS

Staplewood Training Enterprises

Jackson's Farm potential home for the bewildered

 

Surely the buyer of any one of these entities doesn't assume the SLH debt but rather the sale of these goes towards the funds to settle the debts.

 

Just because someone buys the club, they don't automatically assume responsibility for any or all the other debts, not even the stadium.

[Red_No_7]

Is that right? :confused:

 

Let's say, for argument's sake, that SLH is the parent company of:

 

SFC

SMS

Staplewood Training Enterprises

Jackson's Farm potential home for the bewildered

 

Surely the buyer of any one of these entities doesn't assume the SLH debt but rather the sale of these goes towards the funds to settle the debts.

 

Just because someone buys the club, they don't automatically assume responsibility for any or all the other debts, not even the stadium.

 

Right.

 

so who owns the stadium(apart from the banks), the club or the PLC?

 

this is getting bloody confusing :confused:

[bridge too far]

Right.

 

so who owns the stadium(apart from the banks), the club or the PLC?

 

this is getting bloody confusing :confused:

 

It's a company in its own right

 

 

 

Isn't it??????????

 

 

But it's part of the parent company SLH in the same way as SFC is.

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it??????????

 

I think it was originally set up as a Special Purpose Vehicle so it's probably a joint venture between SLH and SMS Ltd - but I don't know that for sure.

[trousers]

It's a company in its own right

 

 

 

Isn't it??????????

 

 

But it's part of the parent company SLH in the same way as SFC is.

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it??????????

 

I think it was originally set up as a Special Purpose Vehicle so it's probably a joint venture between SLH and SMS Ltd - but I don't know that for sure.

 

So, Southampton Leisure Holdings does have other revenue generating subsidiaries other than the Football Club? For example, proceeds from a rock concert would go to the Stadium company rather than directly into SFC or SLH?

 

Which blows the Football League's argument about SFC being the sole revenue generator out of the water, does it not?

[bridge too far]

So, Southampton Leisure Holdings does have other revenue generating subsidiaries other than the Football Club? For example, proceeds from a rock concert would go to the Stadium company rather than directly into SFC or SLH?

 

Which blows the Football League's argument about SFC being the sole revenue generator out of the water, does it not?

 

I don't know that what I've posted is FACT - it's more of an educated guess really.

 

But yes, you're right, it does pepper the FL's argument with shot if it is the case. Maybe that's what the appeal will centre on?

[VectisSaint]

So, Southampton Leisure Holdings does have other revenue generating subsidiaries other than the Football Club? For example, proceeds from a rock concert would go to the Stadium company rather than directly into SFC or SLH?

 

Which blows the Football League's argument about SFC being the sole revenue generator out of the water, does it not?

Which is I believe Mark Fry's argument. We also have catering events that generate revenue that is not from football (the james Bond preniere etc), and in the past the plc had other evenue streams such as the radio Station and the Insurance company. Just because these have since been sold off, to keep the plc liquid does not mean they should not be taken into account. SLH clearly does have and has had in the past revenue streams other than football itself. Sadly the suits at the League and the so-called forensic accountants failed to see this and so have made the incorrect decision they have made. They will end up with egg on their face, and hopefully Mawhinney will have to eat some humble pie (smug bastartd), but I still expect in the end we will be punished, if only for making the League look like mugs (bringing the game into disrepute). You can have all the legal arguments in the world, but the bottom line is that the FL is a members organisatioin and can in effect do whatever the hell they like with the support of a majority of their members.

[Window Cleaner]

The plc will be dissolved. The wicked witch is dead.

 

 

 

 

Eucalypta?

quite apt really, Paulus the Woodgnome was a dutch thingy.

[Window Cleaner]

So, Southampton Leisure Holdings does have other revenue generating subsidiaries other than the Football Club? For example, proceeds from a rock concert would go to the Stadium company rather than directly into SFC or SLH?

 

Which blows the Football League's argument about SFC being the sole revenue generator out of the water, does it not?

 

But that's what the league say isn't it. SLH is solvent but dragged down by the debts and losses of it's wholly owned subsidary SFC Ltd. That line of argument makes our case even worse. It's a fair cop, we just need to accept it and move on.

[exit2]

It's a fair cop, we just need to accept it and move on.

 

Totally agree, and I dont get why people dont get it. Without SFC, SLH would be nothing. All of it money comes from "football" related revenue. You only have to look at the end of year reports for SLH to see that. Although funny how the report is no longer on the sfc website to download. You cannot use the radio sation etc as an excuse as these havent been on for the books for some time.

[derry]

From where I stand it looks like the bids are for the whole package. I was quoted that £15m will more than cover it.

[krissyboy31]

From where I stand it looks like the bids are for the whole package. I was quoted that £15m will more than cover it.

That for a debt free club (even in L1) is an absolute bargain.

[Kingsland Nick]

Cheers.

 

So does that enhance the Football League's stance, or ours, in the dispute over the rules?

 

If a company is liquidated, it is in a sense coming out of administration, so you can guarantee that the Coca Cola League would give us a 15 point penalty.

[Gaucho]

Question: Is it SFC Ltd that is majorly in debt or is it Southampton Stadium Ltd?

In other words does SFC Ltd only have 4 Mill as debt? If this is the case then how can SFC be deducted 10 points if it is the Stadium Company that has the majority of the debt?

Surely, the Stadium Compamy is not subject to the FL rules?

[Red and White Army]

That for a debt free club (even in L1) is an absolute bargain.

 

We wouldn't be a debt free club, even after administration. No way will our creditors renounce their claims on us. THey might reduce the debt, or accept a payoff lower than the real value but we won't be debt free.