Latest from Mark Fry

[krissyboy31]

How about speedway?

 

If they can put motor sport on at Wembley, then why not speedway at SMS?

 

They do it at the Millennium Stadium, they also have Monster Trucks and all-sorts there.

[Legod Third Coming]

People mention why we can't have Fry as our chairman, What if I said that Rupert was doing his role right now and that you had never heard of him a month ago!

 

Stick to what you are good at Mr Fry.

 

I think people see three things:

 

1. Honesty and straight talking.

2. A genuine interest in achieving a satisfactory result.

3. An apparent commitment to the fanbase.

 

And these things - after our recent history - are extremely appealing.

 

Let's face it - he's managed to get four more offers of investment than Rupert!

[Matthew Le God]

Apart from football 19 times a season

 

I wish that were true as we'd be in the Premiership. Sadly League One and Championship have 23 home games per season not including the cup

[sotonist]

that's the problem, that figure won't be acceptable enough to the creditors.

 

barclays owed circa £4m. aviva willing to settle circa £5m (that's what i heard anyway), sell the club for a pound.

 

it's near the top end of the budget, but it's not out of the question.

[MarkSFC]

With grass now much harder wearing there's no reason why another sport can't be played on the pitch. There's no reason why Southampton couldn't support a premiership Rugby Union club.

 

Maybe that was Lowes' dream...what with Woodward....but it was probably him who ****** that up as well!!

[Window Cleaner]

aviva willing to settle circa £5m (that's what i heard anyway), sell the club for a pound.

 

 

 

And write down 18 million of perfectly good debt? doubt it my self.

Now that someone has to pay £5 million in arrears and fees to be able to take on the mortgage as a going concern, that maybe true. Aviva aren't a charity I'm afraid. 23 million is owed on the stadium, they'll want most of that eventually.

[Ken Tone]

I found the interview encouraging ..speaking as someone who always said administration would be nasty

 

He actually says 4 parties *have been through due diligence*, not 'begun' as written article says. Sorry if this is patronising but some posters seem not to understand what DD means. They have to show they have the funds they claim to the administrator, then THEY do DD on us. This is the financial equivalent to having a survey done on a house you are considering buying. You may or may not then make an offer depending on what the surveyor says about the roof leak you hadn't been aware of. These interested parties may or may not make an offer for saints depending on what skeletons their solicitors find in our cupboard that they weren't aware of.

 

But not many people would bother with DD unless they were at least seriously considering offering, in the same way as you wouldn't waste time and money on a survey on a house you weren't at least seriously interested in.

 

By saying 'timescale tight but hope to have sorted within a month' he is surely also effectively saying we aren't going completely bust a day or two after the Forest game.

 

K.

[Scudamore]

People mention why we can't have Fry as our chairman, What if I said that Rupert was doing his role right now and that you had never heard of him a month ago!

Stick to what you are good at Mr Fry.

 

Having seen the money these guys are on...i should think he probably will!

[Legod Third Coming]

And write down 18 million of perfectly good debt? doubt it my self.

Now that someone has to pay £5 million in arrears and fees to be able to take on the mortgage as a going concern, that maybe true. Aviva aren't a charity I'm afraid. 23 million is owed on the stadium, they'll want most of that eventually.

 

You'd be surprised what they'll settle for. It's a case of the bird in the hand... And the last thing they want is a huge white elephant on their books.

[Window Cleaner]

You'd be surprised what they'll settle for. It's a case of the bird in the hand... And the last thing they want is a huge white elephant on their books.

 

 

I remain sceptic all the same.

[Legod Third Coming]

I remain sceptic all the same.

 

You can get ointment for that...

[Window Cleaner]

You can get ointment for that...

 

Been there, got that.

[aintforever]

And write down 18 million of perfectly good debt? doubt it my self.

Now that someone has to pay £5 million in arrears and fees to be able to take on the mortgage as a going concern, that maybe true. Aviva aren't a charity I'm afraid. 23 million is owed on the stadium, they'll want most of that eventually.

 

I think Ipswich's mortgage was for more and they settled on 7mill.

[RedAndWhite91]

With grass now much harder wearing there's no reason why another sport can't be played on the pitch. There's no reason why Southampton couldn't support a premiership Rugby Union club.

 

It's a good point, although I'm surprised Lowe didn't consider using it as a hockey pitch.

[darren1]

I found the interview encouraging ..speaking as someone who always said administration would be nasty

 

He actually says 4 parties *have been through due diligence*, not 'begun' as written article says. Sorry if this is patronising but some posters seem not to understand what DD means. They have to show they have the funds they claim to the administrator, then THEY do DD on us. This is the financial equivalent to having a survey done on a house you are considering buying. You may or may not then make an offer depending on what the surveyor says about the roof leak you hadn't been aware of. These interested parties may or may not make an offer for saints depending on what skeletons their solicitors find in our cupboard that they weren't aware of.

 

But not many people would bother with DD unless they were at least seriously considering offering, in the same way as you wouldn't waste time and money on a survey on a house you weren't at least seriously interested in.

 

By saying 'timescale tight but hope to have sorted within a month' he is surely also effectively saying we aren't going completely bust a day or two after the Forest game.

 

K.

 

Correct, sounds to me like there are offers. But it is the resposibility of the administrator to clear as many debts as possible but in no way garuntee they are all cleared. Sounds like relegation "Has affected the asking price" so there are offers on the table but the parties are playing hard ball to try and sell for as much/buy for as little as possible

[aintforever]

If they are playing hard ball I suppose it should all come to a head before the transfer window opens. I assume that's after the Forest game.

[Window Cleaner]

If they are playing hard ball I suppose it should all come to a head before the transfer window opens. I assume that's after the Forest game.

 

It's when the season ends, whether that's after our last game, the last game in the Prem or after the Cup final I couldn't say.

 

Clubs aren't going to fall over themselves to give us money next Monday you know. They will wait and see and wait and see some more.

[Wopper]

Looks like he will hang it out for as long as he can. Must be a nice little earner for his company.

[CB Fry]

And write down 18 million of perfectly good debt? doubt it my self.

Now that someone has to pay £5 million in arrears and fees to be able to take on the mortgage as a going concern, that maybe true. Aviva aren't a charity I'm afraid. 23 million is owed on the stadium, they'll want most of that eventually.

 

 

I think the notion of "perfectly good debt" went out the window about a year ago.

 

Aviva will settle up for whatever they can get, pretty sure of that.

 

What our prospective new owners need to do is screw Aviva down on this one as much as they can. I think we'll see the stadium debt written off for something significantly less than £10m.

 

 

...which is where our administration is "better" than Leeds was, or Pompey's will be in a year's time. Football wages have to be covered in full so there is no escape from the dopey cheques that lot down the road have written.

[Window Cleaner]

I think the notion of "perfectly good debt" went out the window about a year ago.

 

Aviva will settle up for whatever they can get, pretty sure of that.

 

What our prospective new owners need to do is screw Aviva down on this one as much as they can. I think we'll see the stadium debt written off for something significantly less than £10m.

 

 

...which is where our administration is "better" than Leeds was, or Pompey's will be in a year's time. Football wages have to be covered in full so there is no escape from the dopey cheques that lot down the road have written.

 

 

 

We shall see CB, we shall see. I personally doubt that we'll end up giving Aviva any less than £15 million one way or another. They have us by the bollax and not even administration will change that.They had belt and braces guarantees written in to be sure.

[SaintBobby]

We shall see CB, we shall see. I personally doubt that we'll end up giving Aviva any less than £15 million one way or another. They have us by the bollax and not even administration will change that.They had belt and braces guarantees written in to be sure.

 

I'm no expert in negotiating away mortgages on football stadia - but I think CB Fry is right. It is Aviva who are over a barrel here.

 

St. Mary's stadium is basically a worthless asset, otehr than to the owners of Southampton Football Club.

 

It's not like me trying to negotiate a 75% reduction in the mortgage on my flat. The building society would just laugh, take the keys and flog to it one of (many, many thousands) of possibly interested buyers.

 

There are no realistically imaginable buyers of SMS, other than Saints. If the club goes under, Aviva will not get anything for a repossesed stadium and would probably incur running costs relating to security etc.

 

I think in the lingo, this is what they call a "toxic debt".

 

The putative new oweners of Saints are also helped by the present low interest rates. If a new board was able to offer £5m up front now to write off the mortgage, that's pretty attractive to Aviva I'd guess.

[Window Cleaner]

I'm no expert in negotiating away mortgages on football stadia - but I think CB Fry is right. It is Aviva who are over a barrel here.

 

St. Mary's stadium is basically a worthless asset, otehr than to the owners of Southampton Football Club.

 

It's not like me trying to negotiate a 75% reduction in the mortgage on my flat. The building society would just laugh, take the keys and flog to it one of (many, many thousands) of possibly interested buyers.

 

There are no realistically imaginable buyers of SMS, other than Saints. If the club goes under, Aviva will not get anything for a repossesed stadium and would probably incur running costs relating to security etc.

 

I think in the lingo, this is what they call a "toxic debt".

 

The putative new oweners of Saints are also helped by the present low interest rates. If a new board was able to offer £5m up front now to write off the mortgage, that's pretty attractive to Aviva I'd guess.

 

 

 

I think you're all underestimating the power of Aviva to be honest.

If whoever buys the club doesn't meet their terms they just won't let us play at the Stadium. We shall see, no fury is greater than that of a lender scorned. They aren't going to accept 5 million which would be about 20p in the pound, just the same as Barclay's aren't going to accept 800K. We have saleable assets which will get them more and if necessary they'll be liquidated. I've always said that 15 million was absolute minimum and I see no reason to change that.

[John D]

I'm no expert in negotiating away mortgages on football stadia - but I think CB Fry is right. It is Aviva who are over a barrel here.

 

St. Mary's stadium is basically a worthless asset, otehr than to the owners of Southampton Football Club.

 

It's not like me trying to negotiate a 75% reduction in the mortgage on my flat. The building society would just laugh, take the keys and flog to it one of (many, many thousands) of possibly interested buyers.

 

There are no realistically imaginable buyers of SMS, other than Saints. If the club goes under, Aviva will not get anything for a repossesed stadium and would probably incur running costs relating to security etc.

 

I think in the lingo, this is what they call a "toxic debt".

 

The putative new oweners of Saints are also helped by the present low interest rates. If a new board was able to offer £5m up front now to write off the mortgage, that's pretty attractive to Aviva I'd guess.

 

but likewise there are no alternative 30k stadiums in Southampton. The new owners need the ground as much as Aviva need a buyer. Its a question of who blinks first isn't?

[SaintBobby]

but likewise there are no alternative 30k stadiums in Southampton. The new owners need the ground as much as Aviva need a buyer. Its a question of who blinks first isn't?

 

 

To some degree, I guess that's true.

 

But, I think Saints would probably still have the upper hand in terms of brinkmanship.

 

We do have, at a desperate pinch, the option of, say, seeking a ground-share with Bournemouth or Reading.

 

Like most fans, I'd hate this - but it might bring Aviva back to the negotiating table pretty fast...

[CB Fry]

I think you're all underestimating the power of Aviva to be honest.

If whoever buys the club doesn't meet their terms they just won't let us play at the Stadium. We shall see, no fury is greater than that of a lender scorned. They aren't going to accept 5 million which would be about 20p in the pound, just the same as Barclay's aren't going to accept 800K. We have saleable assets which will get them more and if necessary they'll be liquidated. I've always said that 15 million was absolute minimum and I see no reason to change that.

 

I think the last thing Aviva need is Richard Chorley padlocking himself to the stadium gates and protest marches through the city calling Aviva all kinds of names under the sun.

 

If they kick Saints out they have a piece of land that is worth jack ****, because knocking it down and building something else in this climate is not viable, plus the added grief of Chorley on hunger strike means no developer is going to go anywhere near it.

 

It's a toxic debt on a useless piece of land. It's not like there's a shortage of land to develop at the moment - development is grinding to a halt, and the council are hardly going to rush through someone proposing to bulldoze St Mary's.

 

 

No doubt about it it is a negotiation and a stand off for the reasons you say, and the reasons I and others have given.

 

But there will be a negotiated settlement, and that settlement will see Aviva writing off huge, huge chunks of the debt.

 

Because a £7m agreement on the stadium is £7m more than a useless piece of waste ground you can't develop or sell and the whole of Southampton and wider football fanbase calling you **** on Sky Sports News. You may have noticed the banks have something of a PR problem already...?

[Toadhall Saint]

I'm no expert in negotiating away mortgages on football stadia - but I think CB Fry is right. It is Aviva who are over a barrel here.

 

St. Mary's stadium is basically a worthless asset, otehr than to the owners of Southampton Football Club.

 

It's not like me trying to negotiate a 75% reduction in the mortgage on my flat. The building society would just laugh, take the keys and flog to it one of (many, many thousands) of possibly interested buyers.

 

There are no realistically imaginable buyers of SMS, other than Saints. If the club goes under, Aviva will not get anything for a repossesed stadium and would probably incur running costs relating to security etc.

 

I think in the lingo, this is what they call a "toxic debt".

 

The putative new oweners of Saints are also helped by the present low interest rates. If a new board was able to offer £5m up front now to write off the mortgage, that's pretty attractive to Aviva I'd guess.

 

I'm no financial expert but I think you've got it basically right SB. Unless scrap metal and turf become a must have commodity over night that is!

[SaintBobby]

I think you're all underestimating the power of Aviva to be honest.

If whoever buys the club doesn't meet their terms they just won't let us play at the Stadium. We shall see, no fury is greater than that of a lender scorned. They aren't going to accept 5 million which would be about 20p in the pound, just the same as Barclay's aren't going to accept 800K. We have saleable assets which will get them more and if necessary they'll be liquidated. I've always said that 15 million was absolute minimum and I see no reason to change that.

 

I don't know how the mortgage is secured - I assume it's against the stadium. I think the overdraft at Barclays is unsecured.

 

My understanding, as a layman, is that the writing off - or downscaling - of debts would hardly be a novelty.

 

How many other toxic debts have Aviva and Barcalys downscaled or written off this year?

 

Also, in credit crunch times, a cash offer up front is attractive. There's a big difference (isn't there?), between offering £5m in cash now to write off the mortgage and renegotiating the mortgage down to £5m and promsie to pay the mortgage payments of c. £250,000 a year.

 

I'm interested in finding out about the Ipswich example - if true that they got their mortgage down from more than £23m to just £7m, this seems a good guide.

[Toadhall Saint]

I'm interested in finding out about the Ipswich example - if true that they got their mortgage down from more than £23m to just £7m, this seems a good guide.

 

Wheres Trousers when you need him?

[SFC Forever]

In the wash?

[bridge too far]

I found this:

 

"The club was taken over by businessman Marcus Evans in December 2007. He owns an 87.5% holding which he obtained by paying Norwich Union £6m for the club's £32m debt when the club went into administration."

 

on this link: http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/eng_ipswich.htm

 

I'm trying very hard to usurp Trousers in the research faculty

[Saint Billy]

Sorry but I am not well versed in this sort of thing but, does the buyer have to pay off the mortage, can he not just continue the payments and clear any unpaid payments?

[Ricky Redstripe]

So what is the final deadline? I still haven't seen anything confirmed.

[CB Fry]

Sorry but I am not well versed in this sort of thing but, does the buyer have to pay off the mortage, can he not just continue the payments and clear any unpaid payments?

 

 

I'm not an expert, but you're better off offering a lump sum to write the whole lot off - Marcus Evans remember got that cracking Ipswich deal pre-credit crunch.

 

So its not that you couldn't negotiate staggered payments, but it would be advisable, and probably preferable to Aviva, to do a deal to buy the whole lot for cash.

 

I'm saying £7m would get you the lot.

 

And then New Saints will be laughing.

[Jackie@home]

I read an interview with Ray Ranson talking about what they were doing at Coventry. (This was in the Independent on Saturday a 2 or 3 weeks ago). Apparently, they were able to pay off the stadium debt for £9m by playing "hardball" with the creditors, as he described it. I am also pretty sure that their debt was considerably higher than ours.

 

Makes you wonder even more why our lot didn't accept their offer, if you didn't already realise how incredibly incapable they were at running a business.

[krissyboy31]

I read an interview with Ray Ranson talking about what they were doing at Coventry. (This was in the Independent on Saturday a 2 or 3 weeks ago). Apparently, they were able to pay off the stadium debt for £9m by playing "hardball" with the creditors, as he described it. I am also pretty sure that their debt was considerably higher than ours.

 

Makes you wonder even more why our lot didn't accept their offer, if you didn't already realise how incredibly incapable they were at running a business.

 

I didn't think they owned the stadium?

[Jackie@home]

Perhaps they partly owned it, as I know it was supposed to be part of a large development. He definitely gave the impression that a large proportion of their debts were written off, basically because they were the only offer in town and they were offering cash.

[bridge too far]

Perhaps they partly owned it, as I know it was supposed to be part of a large development. He definitely gave the impression that a large proportion of their debts were written off, basically because they were the only offer in town and they were offering cash.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

The Arena is run by Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) and is separate from the running of Coventry City Football Club who are the Arenas first tenants. It was funded largely by Coventry City council & the Higgs Charity, a charity (of which CCFC and ACL director Sir Derek Higgs was a trustee), and includes shopping facilities, a casino, exhibition halls and a concert venue.

[Genk]

How long do we actually have to find a buyer? I have heard rumours of 5days, is there a specific deadline?

[saintwarwick]

I didn't think they owned the stadium?

 

They don't, they rent it for £1million a year. Another interesting thing about Coventry is they had record losses of £8.5million last season. Don't think Ranson predicted that!