doggface Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 How close are you to the action? Can you say how close we are to a deal? With what certainty will there be news tomorrow? What exactly is holding up the process? These are all questions that need answering - I know its not your responsibility, but understand that everyone needs to know these things to rest easy. Cam the situation is fluid in any negotiations until completion. If that is the best way to describe a situation then I will use that word, I'm sure St david has a wide vocab. I am not close to the action and know no more at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 If the money and finances for the Pinnacle bid were in place, why has it taken so long to be accepted? Have they had financial issues or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Some people can pick apart my posts if they like. I know the drill on here & expect it. However I only post in good faith. I know nothing of jacksons bid I only know about him through sf & tsf which speaks for itself & leads me to form an opinion. Knowing a little about the pinnacle bid means that I back this bid 100% but I have no interest other than getting our club back. If there is a better allround bid for the club I would be very suprised but also very happy. Alignment is the problem, take a leaf out of MLT's book and worry first about Fry accepting A bid, then worry if the one you know about needs any help, that way you can support saving the club rather than a possible Lowe clone who pops out and says SURPRISE at some later date from the moneymen side Another point though, I made reference to hitting a moving target, from what I have observed on here the past 9 days it seems as if getting the deal done is actually a bit like being strapped blindfolded onto a skateboard, pushed down a hill and trying to hit a bullseye 2 inches wide going the other way without any bells on. I'll stay worried if that's ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Fry is probably playing one off against the other. The less favourable bidder is probably desperately trying to buy time to maybe get some more support. The favoured bidder is probably being held at arms length while a bit more is screwed out of them. I just hope we don't end up with a bid that collapses, a bidder that gets hacked off and pulls out and the club gets screwed in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holbury Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 What date/time do the club have to submit the payroll run to BACS (or equivalent) to meet the 21st May (?) payday deadline? Usually 4 working days before isn't it? (at a guess) i.e. tomorrow..... (da da daaaaaa) They would submit the Payroll on Tuesday to clear staff bank accounts on the Thursday. The clocks ticking............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Fry is probably playing one off against the other. The less favourable bidder is probably desperately trying to buy time to maybe get some more support. The favoured bidder is probably being held at arms length while a bit more is screwed out of them. I just hope we don't end up with a bid that collapses, a bidder that gets hacked off and pulls out and the club gets screwed in the process. Yep that's what's going on. Just accept the damn bid Fry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stirchleysaint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Fry is probably playing one off against the other. The less favourable bidder is probably desperately trying to buy time to maybe get some more support. The favoured bidder is probably being held at arms length while a bit more is screwed out of them. I just hope we don't end up with a bid that collapses, a bidder that gets hacked off and pulls out and the club gets screwed in the process. Doesn't this suggest that Mark Fry doesn't think that either deal is satisfactory to our creditors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holbury Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 2 days. On the 20th May (earlier if they do not use electronic means) the club will need to send to the Inland Revenue, the National Insurance and income tax deductions that were made from the salaries paid in April. I imagine that this will be quite a hefty sum. Often it is the failure to pay this that causes financially stricken clubs to have problems with the taxman (and the subsequent further point deductions if no CVA is reached). So next week is going to be quite a strain on the cashflow!!! Somebody must be feeling confident of a deal being done before next week to cancel sunday's game & turn down "derisory" offers for Dyer and Rasiak!! The payroll will need to be submitted on Tuesday to clear bank accounts Thursday 21st and the IR Nat Ins/Tax will need to be sumitted Wednesday to clear bank Friday 22nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 14 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 14 May, 2009 If the Club is bought for £8 million and the Debts are £7 M where does the £1 go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Doesn't this suggest that Mark Fry doesn't think that either deal is satisfactory to our creditors? Not really. His job is to get the best deal possible for the creditors and will try and squeeze as much as he can out of the bidders. He will know what he can and cannot accept and I suspect that if neither of the bidders were able to match the lower limit, he wouldn't still be talking to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjphilsaint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 If the Club is bought for £8 million and the Debts are £7 M where does the £1 go is that £7m +£1? that isnt £8m surely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 If the Club is bought for £8 million and the Debts are £7 M where does the £1 go To Mark Fry? 6 weeks at 25K a day is about a million. Do you see where I'm going with this... http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=12962 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 To Mark Fry? 6 weeks at 25K a day is about a million. Do you see where I'm going with this... http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=12962 25k a day ????? Have a laugh, they don't pay me that much !! Almost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 25k a day ????? Have a laugh, they don't pay me that much !! Almost Is it so ridiculous? Is it so unrealistic considering it will be his whole team and basically his costs are what he can get away with? Fits in with the reports about the million and what a few people have been saying on here for a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Is it so ridiculous? Is it so unrealistic considering it will be his whole team and basically his costs are what he can get away with? Fits in with the reports about the million and what a few people have been saying on here for a while... Yeah i suppose, answered a bit quick TBH. Thought it was his own but i suppose the entire team may make sense. Still a rediculous amount of cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSS Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Be patient my little stripey friends. It'll happen tomorrow.... ..... or at least that's what I'm hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Be patient my little stripey friends. It'll happen tomorrow.... ..... or at least that's what I'm hearing. Thats all i have been hearing, part of me now struggles to believe my tommorow is the same as everyone elses. Apologies NSS, not a dig at you, just this mystical tommorow thing everyone keeps refering to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoswellSaint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Thats all i have been hearing, part of me now struggles to believe my tommorow is the same as everyone elses. Apologies NSS, not a dig at you, just this mystical tommorow thing everyone keeps refering to. Tomorrow never comes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Be patient my little stripey friends. It'll happen tomorrow.... ..... or at least that's what I'm hearing. so thats the 113th time we have heard its gonna happen on a Friday!!! Is that friday 113th, sounds unlucky???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSS Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Thats all i have been hearing, part of me now struggles to believe my tommorow is the same as everyone elses. Apologies NSS, not a dig at you, just this mystical tommorow thing everyone keeps refering to. No offence taken S_S. Take it as you feel is appropriate, but it is passed on in good faith. Has apparently been a longer day than anyone expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 If the Club is bought for £8 million and the Debts are £7 M where does the £1 go If the club is bought for £8M, that will certainly mean that the buyers own the stadium too, as nobody is going to pay that sort of money just for the football club. Here's how it works (I think - though somebody like Clapham Saint will know this stuff far better than I do): SLH, the business in administration, has various creditors. Principal among those are Aviva (stadium loan) and Barclays (overdraft). If a buyer were to stump up - let us say - £10M, this would be split among the various creditors, proportionate to the amount they're each owed. So, if the total debt is £30M the creditors will all receive 33p for each pound they're owed. So, Aviva would get about £7M, Barclays about £2M, the rest split the remaining £1M. Those are all hypothetical figures, of course, but not a million miles from the actual ones. Mark Fry's job in all this is to get as much as he can for the creditors, whilst trying to ensure that the business (or at least some part of it, in this case SFC) continues to exist. So he'll want as high an offer as he can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 No offence taken S_S. Take it as you feel is appropriate, but it is passed on in good faith. Has apparently been a longer day than anyone expected. Nah, just messing, i appreciate the info. Fingers crossed (again). Hmm, what does arthritis feel like ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Yeah i suppose, answered a bit quick TBH. Thought it was his own but i suppose the entire team may make sense. Still a rediculous amount of cash. I agree it's obscene, but if he is delaying till they say OK (or not calling it delaying but stringing out to get more cash by looking at other options.) then it's a very dangerous game. Let us hope that things are sorted with Pinnacle tomorrow then (sigh I've been waiting for about 3 weeks now at this computer!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 I agree it's obscene, but if he is delaying till they say OK (or not calling it delaying but stringing out to get more cash by looking at other options.) then it's a very dangerous game. Let us hope that things are sorted with Pinnacle tomorrow then (sigh I've been waiting for about 3 weeks now at this computer!) Me too, problem is this nappy is getting MASSIVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 The saying tomorrow never comes is certainly close to the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Be patient my little stripey friends. It'll happen tomorrow.... "It" as in the beginning of the next drawn out phase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 I've been waiting for about 3 weeks now at this computer! Three weeks? Is that all. 2 years for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 14 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 14 May, 2009 If the club is bought for £8M, that will certainly mean that the buyers own the stadium too, as nobody is going to pay that sort of money just for the football club. Here's how it works (I think - though somebody like Clapham Saint will know this stuff far better than I do): SLH, the business in administration, has various creditors. Principal among those are Aviva (stadium loan) and Barclays (overdraft). If a buyer were to stump up - let us say - £10M, this would be split among the various creditors, proportionate to the amount they're each owed. So, if the total debt is £30M the creditors will all receive 33p for each pound they're owed. So, Aviva would get about £7M, Barclays about £2M, the rest split the remaining £1M. Those are all hypothetical figures, of course, but not a million miles from the actual ones. Mark Fry's job in all this is to get as much as he can for the creditors, whilst trying to ensure that the business (or at least some part of it, in this case SFC) continues to exist. So he'll want as high an offer as he can get. I was not sure if the £8 million included the Stadium I understand the rest OK thanks. If only somewhere in the region of £8m is being offered to include the Stadium it is really no wonder the administrator is trying to get more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Three weeks? Is that all. 2 years for me... I had a days break around October last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Three weeks? Is that all. 2 years for me... IF this happens tomorrow, my company will not believe the increase in productivity from me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 (edited) Every day, for I can't remember how long, I have been thinking of a rusty old sign I saw somewhere in New Zealand on the side of a bar. It read : Free Beer Tomorrow Of course tomorrow never comes, but in this case, just perhaps, it will. and you realise that it is already Friday morning in New Zealand? Edited 14 May, 2009 by hugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 as I put earlier if some of those figures are right why did Barclays pull the plug? If they only come out with 2m and we were only overstepping our overdraft by 100k!! So to save the 100k they may lose 2m odd isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Oh well,another day listening to every news break on the radio at work again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 as I put earlier if some of those figures are right why did Barclays pull the plug? If they only come out with 2m and we were only overstepping our overdraft by 100k!! So to save the 100k they may lose 2m odd isnt it? This has puzzled me a bit too, Nick. The only answer I can come up with is that the bank saw the dwindling attendances and realised that they'd continue to fall all the time RL was at the helm. Maybe they could see that the projected income could not be realised after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Dear Friends , Romans, Crusaders and warriors I am neither St David although I have spoken to him in the past and nor stuart Green although I shopped in his uncles store once. Ahh good old Orkney Saint did he not move to the hebrides last year. Anyway, My gut feeling is the take over will happen next week!!!:cool::cool::cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 as I put earlier if some of those figures are right why did Barclays pull the plug? If they only come out with 2m and we were only overstepping our overdraft by 100k!! So to save the 100k they may lose 2m odd isnt it? Presumably they thought the £100k would continue to increase and become £200k and so on. Therefore they decided to draw a line in the sand knowing that £2m out of a £4m debt is better than £2.2m out of a £5m debt. (all numbers made up for illustrative purposes!) Question is - why couldn't we convince them we could continue to reduce the debt and not increase it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 as I put earlier if some of those figures are right why did Barclays pull the plug? If they only come out with 2m and we were only overstepping our overdraft by 100k!! So to save the 100k they may lose 2m odd isnt it? Probably because like 90% of the Saints fans Barclays had lost faith in the board and management to make any decision and get it right! They had lost enough and didnt trust old loveable old rosey cheeks to lose anymore going by falling gates, league position, abysmal managerial decisions and use of loans and wage bill this season. Its just you 10% that refuse to see it ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 14 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 14 May, 2009 This has puzzled me a bit too, Nick. The only answer I can come up with is that the bank saw the dwindling attendances and realised that they'd continue to fall all the time RL was at the helm. Maybe they could see that the projected income could not be realised after all. Yes that maybe the case but if we were still in the Championship the Television income would have been higher next season Barclays could not have known that we would have been relegated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 14 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Probably because like 90% of the Saints fans Barclays had lost faith in the board and management to make any decision and get it right! They had lost enough and didnt trust old loveable old rosey cheeks to lose anymore going by falling gates, league position, abysmal managerial decisions and use of loans and wage bill this season. Its just you 10% that refuse to see it ;-) Surely it was Barclays that were dictating to Lowe what to do to reduce the overdraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Surely it was Barclays that were dictating to Lowe what to do to reduce the overdraft Did Barclays force the decisions back in March/April to go the stupid Dutch route that caused lower gates and revenue? We have been through all this before....over and over again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 No offence taken S_S. Take it as you feel is appropriate, but it is passed on in good faith. Has apparently been a longer day than anyone expected. Holy sh1t! Has Morph Morphed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Probably because like 90% of the Saints fans Barclays had lost faith in the board and management to make any decision and get it right! They had lost enough and didnt trust old loveable old rosey cheeks to lose anymore going by falling gates, league position, abysmal managerial decisions and use of loans and wage bill this season. Its just you 10% that refuse to see it ;-) To do it at that time though? To basically relegate us and so make the club worht even less and theior take smaller.Thye could have seen the sale of assets during the summer as well. Whatever you may thinkl of RL it still was madness, if they were getting twitchy they should have made us sell in jan and not allow us to take on loans.It is madness IMO and they will be getting back less than if they had supported us.There is more than meets the eye i suggest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Holy sh1t! Has Morph Morphed? I don't think so, unless Morph has become a Skate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 To do it at that time though? To basically relegate us and so make the club worht even less and theior take smaller.Thye could have seen the sale of assets during the summer as well. Whatever you may thinkl of RL it still was madness, if they were getting twitchy they should have made us sell in jan and not allow us to take on loans.It is madness IMO and they will be getting back less than if they had supported us.There is more than meets the eye i suggest Nick, you've mentioned this twice today... Which assets could we have sold, and who [in their right mind] would have bought them? We tried to sell everything not nailed down in January didn't we, and there were no takers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Presumably they thought the £100k would continue to increase and become £200k and so on. Therefore they decided to draw a line in the sand knowing that £2m out of a £4m debt is better than £2.2m out of a £5m debt. (all numbers made up for illustrative purposes!) Question is - why couldn't we convince them we could continue to reduce the debt and not increase it? Fair comment but it still stinks of intrigue.The club had reduced h the overdraft by 2m in a year. We still had s/t revenue due to come in and that would have brought the overdraft down more plus a lot of the higher value players were going to be out of contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Nick, you've mentioned this twice today... Which assets could we have sold, and who [in their right mind] would have bought them? We tried to sell everything not nailed down in January didn't we, and there were no takers....Well we had Dyer Rasiak who were likely to be purchased by the respective clubs they were loaned to.The papers had said Watford wanted to buy Rasiak. If Drew was sold for 200k there would be buyers etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 I suspect Barclays, like the Club and the Administrators were not expecting the 10 point deduction, therefore making relegation inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 I suspect Barclays, like the Club and the Administrators were not expecting the 10 point deduction, therefore making relegation inevitable. JP & MW made relegation inevitable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 Well we had Dyer Rasiak who were likely to be purchased by the respective clubs they were loaned to.The papers had said Watford wanted to buy Rasiak. If Drew was sold for 200k there would be buyers etc etc. They weren't bought because they were no better than those clubs already have! Unlike us, maybe they have a policy of not bloating their squads with 'more of the same' :smt102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 To do it at that time though? To basically relegate us and so make the club worht even less and theior take smaller.Thye could have seen the sale of assets during the summer as well. Whatever you may thinkl of RL it still was madness, if they were getting twitchy they should have made us sell in jan and not allow us to take on loans.It is madness IMO and they will be getting back less than if they had supported us.There is more than meets the eye i suggest Do we know they did not demand we not take on any more loans etc....could the loveable rogue not of lied to save his 'investment'? Desperate men do desperate things and going by his decisions this season I wouldnt put it past him to make yet another that really ****ed off the bank they had enough and pulled the plug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now