Fry wants £14 million for Saints!

[bolo]

Thing is why has the administrator come from barclays and not AViva? Surely Aviva have the most to lose and they should be calling the shots, and not barclays? Surely whoever buys saints (if we find a buyer! ) will have to continue to service the mortgage, abet maybe with renegotiated interest rates. If not there is no way Aviva would agree to £14m its why i asked what the £14m covers. If the £14m covers barclays debt (+ other smaller creditors) + assets then i can understand it.

 

If it covers barclays + others + assets + SMS Then i can't see there being a resolution. goddamnit!!!!

[OldNick]

£14m is a great deal to lay out, but let's face it is a cheap for all the facilities and no debt!

not to buy a football club that may well have -25 points to start the season, and then almost assured relegation to L2. What gates/revenue can you factor in for that?

[lenwilkins]

Weston has I am sure hit the nail on the head, and nickh was probably right with his thread.

 

Somehow or another the wages have to be paid "on 4th Thursday of every month". it's a bank holiday, Fry hasn't got the money.

 

Now the figures Fry will have given prospective buyers will have come with a BIG health warning. It is Caveat Empor, it is up to the BUYERS to get a teamof specialists into SMS to dig out everything. That will take TIME, Fry HAD that when a bid was made on 6th May but he didn't like the structure it seems, so he waited for the Legends game and Pinnacle. I think we and he are now screwed.

 

IF He is insisting that somebody pays him 500k non-refundable just to look at the books and do the work he should already have done then no wonder things are proving "difficult"

 

It sounds like his negotiation skills are about as good as Lowe's listening skills

 

 

As for the valuation at 45p for a failed business, I note today that BAA's long term debt is selling at 46p in the pound - and they are still TRADING

 

I can't see anyone being willing to risk £500K in the way that Fry wants. I also think the figure of £14 million seems extremely optimistic and as Weston says, in the unlikely event of anyone coughing this up, whilst it is good for the creditors it will be to the detriment of the club and future investment.

 

I can't say that the likes of Pinnacle or Jackson and Green inspire me with any confidence.

 

Do we know who J&G's backers are? Are you still mates with Wacko Phil?

[lenwilkins]

Barclays did not put us in Administration, Lowe did because we were no longer a going concern. All Barclays did (as they were perfectly entitled to do) is not honour cheques drawn over the overdraft limit after the deadline for player sales had passed and it was obvious expenditure would far outweigh income in the months that followed.

 

My guess is that Barclays would have lost sympathy with Lowe because he didn't sell players in the transfer window as they had asked him too and subsequently started bouncing cheques even though the account was only a little over the agreed overdraft figure.

 

Do you think this is the case Weston?

[dubai_phil]

I can't see anyone being willing to risk £500K in the way that Fry wants. I also think the figure of £14 million seems extremely optimistic and as Weston says, in the unlikely event of anyone coughing this up, whilst it is good for the creditors it will be to the detriment of the club and future investment.

 

I can't say that the likes of Pinnacle or Jackson and Green inspire me with any confidence.

 

Do we know who J&G's backers are? Are you still mates with Wacko Phil?

 

I and others drank many beers with him & Stuart on 7th evening... and when Stuart or any of his guys came down this way we also have beers.

 

 

In answer to the question, it will be nda'd, not itk'd

 

and no I sign nuffink, never for noone.

[Weston Saint]

My guess is that Barclays would have lost sympathy with Lowe because he didn't sell players in the transfer window as they had asked him too and subsequently started bouncing cheques even though the account was only a little over the agreed overdraft figure.

 

Do you think this is the case Weston?

Although without knowledge of what went on that would be my take on it as well.

[Barry the Badger]

 

Once relegation was confirmed, Barclays faced a simple choice: either keep the club afloat, but at the cost of allowing the overdraft to float back up, or force SLH into administration and cut their losses. In the depths of the credit crunch, there really was no alternative.

 

 

But relegation wasn't confirmed when we went into admin.

[bridge too far]

My guess is that Barclays would have lost sympathy with Lowe because he didn't sell players in the transfer window as they had asked him too and subsequently started bouncing cheques even though the account was only a little over the agreed overdraft figure.

 

Do you think this is the case Weston?

 

Should we also factor in that they could see attendances were dropping and therefore that it was unlikely that any 'recovery plan' would fail all the time RL was in charge?

[once_bitterne]

Barclays did not put us in Administration, Lowe did because we were no longer a going concern. All Barclays did (as they were perfectly entitled to do) is not honour cheques drawn over the overdraft limit after the deadline for player sales had passed and it was obvious expenditure would far outweigh income in the months that followed.

 

I'm not sure this was the case. From what was said at the time we did not go over our agreed overdraft limit. What pushed us into admin was Barclays reducing our overdraft limit by £1m and demanding we pay them this money immediately. Our inablilty to do this pushed us into admin.

[Clapham Saint]

The longer this one goes on the weaker and shriller Mr Frys demands will become. The guy looks out of his depth against people who know how to negociate hard.

 

He sets deadlines and then breaks them, that makes him look weak and desperate. If the guy really had another strong bidder then surely they would step in but the silence is deafening.

 

£14M? I think he's will be forced to take a reality check.

 

+1 soon or later he is going to have to take the deal on offer as there is nothing else in the offing.

 

Techincally Fry could go for a breask up and close down but (as I've said on other posts) I can't see any (reasonable) circumstance where that is going to realise more than a sale of the club as a going concern.

[Weston Saint]

I'm not sure this was the case. From what was said at the time we did not go over our agreed overdraft limit. What pushed us into admin was Barclays reducing our overdraft limit by £1m and demanding we pay them this money immediately. Our inablilty to do this pushed us into admin.

That is not my understanding of the matter. It was the bounced cheques that led Lowe to call in the Administrators. He had a fiduciary responsibility to do so. there was no chance of funds coming in from any other source.

[PaulSaint]

Really do not understand posters. How are the creditors greedy? So if you lent your mate £1000 and a year later he still had not paid would you take £500 and call it quits??? I dont think so.

 

Yes but you have lent your grand to a mate that is a complete F* ckwit, he's just lost his £1000,000 a year job because of bad management & is now working in McDonalds. I would not be expecting my grand back!

[Frank's cousin]

Barclays did not put us in Administration, Lowe did because we were no longer a going concern. All Barclays did (as they were perfectly entitled to do) is not honour cheques drawn over the overdraft limit after the deadline for player sales had passed and it was obvious expenditure would far outweigh income in the months that followed.

 

Its a mute point though - in Barclays not honoring teh checks this in effect made us no longer a going concern... under such conditions it would have been illegal for Lowe NOT to place us in admin or to continue trading as normal - ineffect Barclays knew the consequences of that decision, even if in this case it was not teh creditors calling for administrators.

[jonah]

From what we know, Fry (of Barclays) forced the overdraft limit lower and lower during the second half of the season.

 

Really? I thought they requested it to be cut from £6m to the agreed limit of £5m before the season started, which we did. I thought they then demanded it was cut from £5m to £4m by year end, but they made this demand just after the August transfer window closed? Reading between the lines (in the absence of many facts!) I thought we achieved this too, but the return of Saga on his high wage caused a problem and the jugglers dropped their balls so to speak.

 

Once relegation was confirmed, Barclays faced a simple choice: either keep the club afloat, but at the cost of allowing the overdraft to float back up, or force SLH into administration and cut their losses. In the depths of the credit crunch, there really was no alternative.

 

I think you give Barclays too much credit - I think it's far more likely that some faceless suit at Canary Wharf made the decision using a spreadsheet whilst reading the latest Formula1 news on Bloomberg. £4m probably doesn't even cover the annual cost of plants in their building, I just don't see anyone putting that much thought into it - especially given we still had 7 games to play at that time and were on 40 pts... hardly "relegation confirmed", if that was their condition they might as well have risked a further £100k loss to move to May and know for certain. Plus get the ST money in and loads of players off the books..

 

It’s why I’m still pessimistic – at least in the sense that no buyer is going to be able to meet Mark Fry’s demands.

 

I see that as a problem too which is why the longer this gets dragged out the harder it gets, the debt increases and hence the price increases.

[Third Division South Days]

I doubt there’s that much mystery about Barclays pulling the admin trigger.

 

From what we know, Fry (of Barclays) forced the overdraft limit lower and lower during the second half of the season. This by itself would explain why there was no proper rescue plan put in place when it became clear to everyone – even the dreaded duo – that the ‘total football revolution’ was turning us into a footballing banana republic. No loans – even emergency ones – and no new manager to revitalise the team and ditch the woeful Dutch masterplan.

 

We also know that at the beginning of the Lowe/Wilde regime, Fry had told the club that they had to achieve substantial savings on running costs, and that had to be achieved with player sales and whatever else could be cut back. The club’s failure to offload some of the players with disastrously expensive contracts, and Lowe’s presumed reluctance to make cuts to sacred cows like the academy, inevitably meant that Fry was not seeing the cuts he wanted to see.

 

Putting a football club into administration would have been a big deal for Barclays, given the extent of their football sponsorship. I suspect that Fry referred up within the bank’s higher management, and that a strategy was agreed: force the overdraft down as far and as fast as possible to reduce the risk – and then hope and pray that that the club can avoid the financially disastrous consequences of relegation.

 

Once relegation was confirmed, Barclays faced a simple choice: either keep the club afloat, but at the cost of allowing the overdraft to float back up, or force SLH into administration and cut their losses. In the depths of the credit crunch, there really was no alternative. A season or more of handing out blank cheques to keep a club with a premiership infrastructure afloat in the dismal depths of League One was simply never going to happen. (We also know the rough scale of the cost of this, from Mandaric’s recent comment that he spent £10 million keeping Leicester’s Championship structure going for just one season in League One.)

 

I wouldn’t mind knowing, though, exactly what Aviva thought of Barclays’ decision to force SLH into admin. I bet they weren’t impressed. They had rescheduled the mortgage, and as far as we know the mortgage was being paid on the due dates. Now all of a sudden, they face getting pennies on the pound as by far the largest creditor. Not good.

 

If Fry is holding out for such a high sum as £14million, I’d also bet it’s because Aviva – effectively the biggest player in the sale of the club – are ticked off and are simply not prepared to roll over with some pie-in-the-sky deal whereby they recoup to the original value of the mortgage if we get back to the prem (In any case, that’ll be another poison pill the club further down the line)

 

It’s why I’m still pessimistic – at least in the sense that no buyer is going to be able to meet Mark Fry’s demands.

 

Where's this come from? Fry is not employed by Barclays but a company appointed by Barclays to act as Administrators. Saying that it was MF decision the reduce the overdraft facility for instance does not ring true.

[Ian the Red]

not to buy a football club that may well have -25 points to start the season, and then almost assured relegation to L2. What gates/revenue can you factor in for that?

 

Nick,

 

It is only 10 points at the moment and the 10 points oughtl be to subject to an appeal. any furterh penalty is surely subject to the club being liquidated.......

[saintstr1]

That is not my understanding of the matter. It was the bounced cheques that led Lowe to call in the Administrators. He had a fiduciary responsibility to do so. there was no chance of funds coming in from any other source.

 

Lowe could have gone Cap in Hand to Crouch who would have stumped up if Lowe & Wilde walked away. Trouble was Lowes self esteem and foolish pride was more important to him than Southampton Football Club.

[londonsaint1604]

Total ******....unsecured creditors, maybe, but if Aviva are expecting 10p in the pound for St. Mary's Stadium, ie £2.4M, I'll buy it tomorrow....

 

Fair enough but they should settle for almost half of what they're owed. That's not a bad deal considering the circumstances.

[Rem]

Agree Ponty, it is quite bizarre. The thing I can't reconcile is why Lowe and co didn't find the money themselves to bring the overdraft up to date when the chips were down.

 

I mean when Barclays called to say the overdraft is 110,000 quid in arrears so it's admin for you, why the hell didn't Lowe and/or his cohorts simply write a cheque on the spot?

 

That lot must have been good for it between them and much as they might not want to dip into their own pockets the thing is they have lost millions in share value and wages and expenses by ignoring Barclays.

 

Lowe lost about 1.5 million in potential share value and Wilde much more, yet all of them simply walked away and lost the lot. Surely it would have been worth a quick whip round to save their investments?

 

The whole thing beats me, I know Lowe seems to act crazy most of the time but what sort of a lunatic would let themselves lose out like his followers appear to have done?

 

There doesn't seem to have been any real reason for the admin, especially for such a small amount, so why did Lowe let it happen? I know he doesn't like us fans and may have thought it served us right, but then it's his money he's lost....

 

:rolleyes:

 

Maybe Barclays or Aviva asked the directors to give personal guarantees and they, knowing the real state of affairs, didn't want to put themselves at risk for the entire debt!

[OldNick]

Nick,

 

It is only 10 points at the moment and the 10 points oughtl be to subject to an appeal. any furterh penalty is surely subject to the club being liquidated.......

No it increases if we dont come out of administration with a CVA. If HMRC are not paid up in full they will not agree to us having a CVA and so the league will give us another -15. we do not need to be liquidated for the extra points to be deducted.

[jonah]

Where's this come from? Fry is not employed by Barclays but a company appointed by Barclays to act as Administrators. Saying that it was MF decision the reduce the overdraft facility for instance does not ring true.

 

The area manager at Barclays was also called Fry - confusing eh :-) He was also the manager of Crouch's businesses...

[DT]

I'd say £14million is pretty cheap for a decent concert venue.

[trousers]

Where's this come from? Fry is not employed by Barclays but a company appointed by Barclays to act as Administrators. Saying that it was MF decision the reduce the overdraft facility for instance does not ring true.

 

There are two 'Mr Frys'.....the one who works for Barclays and looked after SLH's accounts, and the other who works for Begbies Traynor.

 

And, by the way, WH Ireland were recommending Begbies Traynor in their end of year report

[OldNick]

I'd say £14million is pretty cheap for a decent concert venue.

 

That is a concern.Although the rates bill is pretty high.About £1m I think

[Ian the Red]

No it increases if we dont come out of administration with a CVA. If HMRC are not paid up in full they will not agree to us having a CVA and so the league will give us another -15. we do not need to be liquidated for the extra points to be deducted.

 

Thanks for clarifying that Nick. But if we have a buyer we will be out of admin, I am sure that HMCR has been paid; Fry would have to make sure that nothing is owed to HMCR; if there is there would need to be an agreement in place with HMCR to clear any outstanding debt when the sale is made - Tax office only let off MP's not football clubs!! Therefore, it is, IMHO, very unlikely that we would have a further 15 points deducted. So £14m is looking a good price for a club with no debt, own ground, training ground etc etc and with the potential to finish in the top 6 next season even with -10 points.

Edited 21 May, 2009 by Ian the Red

[aintforever]

How does Fry expect to get £14mill on liquidation?

 

Anyone looking to buy will look at what the banks will get if it all folds and offer a bit more, £7mill is probably about right.

[buctootim]

I'm not sure this was the case. From what was said at the time we did not go over our agreed overdraft limit. What pushed us into admin was Barclays reducing our overdraft limit by £1m and demanding we pay them this money immediately. Our inablilty to do this pushed us into admin.

 

That is not my understanding of the matter. It was the bounced cheques that led Lowe to call in the Administrators. He had a fiduciary responsibility to do so. there was no chance of funds coming in from any other source.

 

Arent you both right? The clubs overdraft reduced during the season, as is normal when money is coming in through the gate, the limit was lowered - possibly not by mutual agreement - and so when the season was over and no money was coming in and overdraft requirement started to rise again - there was no cash and insufficient loan facility.

[Ian the Red]

How does Fry expect to get £14mill on liquidation?

 

Anyone looking to buy will look at what the banks will get if it all folds and offer a bit more, £7mill is probably about right.

 

You seem to forget the £24m owed on the stadium...........

[aintforever]

You seem to forget the £24m owed on the stadium...........

 

But without a football club the stadium's value is pretty much naff all.

[OldNick]

But without a football club the stadium's value is pretty much naff all.

sadly not the case, i put elsewhere i had spoken to someone who does large events and the stadium is valuble as a concert and conference centre etc.

[aintforever]

sadly not the case, i put elsewhere i had spoken to someone who does large events and the stadium is valuble as a concert and conference centre etc.

 

How much value? It's not exactly a top conference venue without SFC's brand associated with it, how much is it worth as a concert venue?

[krissyboy31]

sadly not the case, i put elsewhere i had spoken to someone who does large events and the stadium is valuble as a concert and conference centre etc.

 

Which is why I find it strange it's all gone quiet on the story that the council were interested in buying it. As a club, surely this has got to be the best option, short of owning it ourselves.

[OldNick]

How much value? It's not exactly a top conference venue without SFC's brand associated with it, how much is it worth as a concert venue?

 

im not expereinced enough to know that,

[Foxy]

How much value? It's not exactly a top conference venue without SFC's brand associated with it, how much is it worth as a concert venue?

 

I'd buy it if I had the cash. It'd be a lovely place for a kickabout

[OldNick]

Which is why I find it strange it's all gone quiet on the story that the council were interested in buying it. As a club, surely this has got to be the best option, short of owning it ourselves.

I assume nobody wants to be associated with this at a time when many jobs are going etc.Elections will be coming up and for every saints fan in favour there will be 5 couldnt care and dont want to think they are paying for it, however much it stacks up

[OldNick]

I'd buy it if I had the cash. It'd be a lovely place for a kickabout

Would you put some fences on the roof to stop all the balls being lost?

[70's Mike]

admin seems like the easy option for Lowe and Wilde.

Small businesses, up and down the country, face problems the owners borrow money secured on their assets etc.

we seem to have had a couple of bounced cheques and folded without a fight.

if they had walked away would Crouch have funded the club until the season ticket money came in, also after we went into admin we had two home games with better than average attendances and presumably income.

[sandwichsaint]

Day by day we inch nearer to the position I foresaw immediately it was announced that RL had split SLH from the football side, placed SLH in admin (complete with the mortgage on SMS), and was trying to wing it for SFC to be reborn avoiding a points reduction (and walking away from a lot of the debt).

 

Many people welcomed that at the time; some had been actively seeking it.

 

My first reaction was that we had put ourselves in a position where we stood a very real possibility of losing the ground. Is this not still the case?

 

Number 1 is everyone's preffered option: the club is bought out (for 14m?) and carries on much as before 'debt free'. Why is everyone 'assuming' Aviva will take a one-off payment of c6m and effectively give the new owners the freehold of SMS? Is there any evidence there is anybody out there willing to pay 14m cash upfront, with presumably plenty more needed to fund 'rebuilding'?

 

Number 2 might now be the best we can hope for? If nobody wants or can afford to buy the whole lot then Aviva can either sell the stadium to a third party (possibly the council/possibly private/possibly GM!) and turn it into a mixed 'events' venue with concerts/rugby/whatever and Saints being tenants in their own stadium. This model does not deliver a debt-free club and we would be double-whammied by paying rent and be hit by the loss of external revenue. Aviva could of course keep the freehold in the medium term till the economic conditions improve (and possibly the football club too!) and just rent the stadium to a third party.

 

Number 3: somebody buys 'Saints' (very cheaply) and walks away from SMS, we then ground share (either in Div 1) or in the Blue Square and have to start again from ground zero.

 

Number 4: club liquidated, assetts sold, players released, no football club.

 

 

IMHO all 4 of these outcomes are still runners but I wouldn't like to say in which proportions: 1, at the moment looks unlikely, people keep telling me (themselves!) that 3 and 4 won't happen; by a process of elimination does that leave 2 as the likeliest outcome?

 

I knew we should never have left the Antelope ground ....

[saint1977]

I assume nobody wants to be associated with this at a time when many jobs are going etc.Elections will be coming up and for every saints fan in favour there will be 5 couldnt care and dont want to think they are paying for it, however much it stacks up

 

People should forget about the idea of SCC buying the stadium. I'm sure the intentions were genuine but there is not the cross-party support for it to happen at present I understand and SCC are unlikely to seriously consider it unless the club itself is secured which as we can see from this thread seems some way still off happening.

 

Do remember though that Fry's priority is creditors and not SFC. The Jackson bid would be a disaster IMO but if they meet or get close the price and exhaust their funds and the other parties hang back because they'd rather invest the money in going forward - wealthy people don't like wasting money - that is not Fry's problem.

[OldNick]

admin seems like the easy option for Lowe and Wilde.

Small businesses, up and down the country, face problems the owners borrow money secured on their assets etc.

we seem to have had a couple of bounced cheques and folded without a fight.

if they had walked away would Crouch have funded the club until the season ticket money came in, also after we went into admin we had two home games with better than average attendances and presumably income.

No they folded as it was their legal requirement to.As soon as they started bouncing cheques as the bank had wirthdrawn suppport it was over.I dont think LC would have or should have paid for us in that situation.He would effectivily be giving money to RL etc and rightly he would never do so.

[The9]

Thanks for clarifying that Nick. But if we have a buyer we will be out of admin, I am sure that HMCR has been paid; Fry would have to make sure that nothing is owed to HMCR; if there is there would need to be an agreement in place with HMCR to clear any outstanding debt when the sale is made - Tax office only let off MP's not football clubs!! Therefore, it is, IMHO, very unlikely that we would have a further 15 points deducted. So £14m is looking a good price for a club with no debt, own ground, training ground etc etc and with the potential to finish in the top 6 next season even with -10 points.

 

We'd also get a -15 for still being in Admin by the time the League demands it in time for the new season, I'm speculating here as I only saw the date on a Skate forum, but I believe that date is June 21st.

 

Thanks to the wonderful transparency of the FL, I can't find it on their site.

[OldNick]

Day by day we inch nearer to the position I foresaw immediately it was announced that RL had split SLH from the football side, placed SLH in admin (complete with the mortgage on SMS), and was trying to wing it for SFC to be reborn avoiding a points reduction (and walking away from a lot of the debt).

 

Many people welcomed that at the time; some had been actively seeking it.

 

My first reaction was that we had put ourselves in a position where we stood a very real possibility of losing the ground. Is this not still the case?

 

Number 1 is everyone's preffered option: the club is bought out (for 14m?) and carries on much as before 'debt free'. Why is everyone 'assuming' Aviva will take a one-off payment of c6m and effectively give the new owners the freehold of SMS? Is there any evidence there is anybody out there willing to pay 14m cash upfront, with presumably plenty more needed to fund 'rebuilding'?

 

Number 2 might now be the best we can hope for? If nobody wants or can afford to buy the whole lot then Aviva can either sell the stadium to a third party (possibly the council/possibly private/possibly GM!) and turn it into a mixed 'events' venue with concerts/rugby/whatever and Saints being tenants in their own stadium. This model does not deliver a debt-free club and we would be double-whammied by paying rent and be hit by the loss of external revenue. Aviva could of course keep the freehold in the medium term till the economic conditions improve (and possibly the football club too!) and just rent the stadium to a third party.

 

Number 3: somebody buys 'Saints' (very cheaply) and walks away from SMS, we then ground share (either in Div 1) or in the Blue Square and have to start again from ground zero.

 

Number 4: club liquidated, assetts sold, players released, no football club.

 

 

IMHO all 4 of these outcomes are still runners but I wouldn't like to say in which proportions: 1, at the moment looks unlikely, people keep telling me (themselves!) that 3 and 4 won't happen; by a process of elimination does that leave 2 as the likeliest outcome?

 

I knew we should never have left the Antelope ground ....

My understanding was that te stadium was apart from the club years ago not a recent thing.

[70's Mike]

No they folded as it was their legal requirement to.As soon as they started bouncing cheques as the bank had wirthdrawn suppport it was over.I dont think LC would have or should have paid for us in that situation.He would effectivily be giving money to RL etc and rightly he would never do so.

 

 

in theory i agree but in practice ever company that has a bounced cheque does not go into admin.

they trade their way out of it and find alternative sources of finance

we appear to have done nothing except give up

[derry]

Mark Fry told me that £15m would be more than enough to buy SLH Ltd and it's assets, settle it's debts lock, stock and barrel.

[SaintRichmond]

I doubt there’s that much mystery about Barclays pulling the admin trigger.

 

From what we know, Fry (of Barclays) forced the overdraft limit lower and lower during the second half of the season. This by itself would explain why there was no proper rescue plan put in place when it became clear to everyone – even the dreaded duo – that the ‘total football revolution’ was turning us into a footballing banana republic. No loans – even emergency ones – and no new manager to revitalise the team and ditch the woeful Dutch masterplan.

 

We also know that at the beginning of the Lowe/Wilde regime, Fry had told the club that they had to achieve substantial savings on running costs, and that had to be achieved with player sales and whatever else could be cut back. The club’s failure to offload some of the players with disastrously expensive contracts, and Lowe’s presumed reluctance to make cuts to sacred cows like the academy, inevitably meant that Fry was not seeing the cuts he wanted to see.

 

Putting a football club into administration would have been a big deal for Barclays, given the extent of their football sponsorship. I suspect that Fry referred up within the bank’s higher management, and that a strategy was agreed: force the overdraft down as far and as fast as possible to reduce the risk – and then hope and pray that that the club can avoid the financially disastrous consequences of relegation.

 

Once relegation was confirmed, Barclays faced a simple choice: either keep the club afloat, but at the cost of allowing the overdraft to float back up, or force SLH into administration and cut their losses. In the depths of the credit crunch, there really was no alternative. A season or more of handing out blank cheques to keep a club with a premiership infrastructure afloat in the dismal depths of League One was simply never going to happen. (We also know the rough scale of the cost of this, from Mandaric’s recent comment that he spent £10 million keeping Leicester’s Championship structure going for just one season in League One.)

 

I wouldn’t mind knowing, though, exactly what Aviva thought of Barclays’ decision to force SLH into admin. I bet they weren’t impressed. They had rescheduled the mortgage, and as far as we know the mortgage was being paid on the due dates. Now all of a sudden, they face getting pennies on the pound as by far the largest creditor. Not good.

 

If Fry is holding out for such a high sum as £14million, I’d also bet it’s because Aviva – effectively the biggest player in the sale of the club – are ticked off and are simply not prepared to roll over with some pie-in-the-sky deal whereby they recoup to the original value of the mortgage if we get back to the prem (In any case, that’ll be another poison pill the club further down the line)

 

It’s why I’m still pessimistic – at least in the sense that no buyer is going to be able to meet Mark Fry’s demands.

 

 

As I recollect it, Relegation was NOT confirmed until weeks AFTER Barclays pulled the plug, forcing Saints into Administration.

 

Does Fry of Barclays actually KNOW anything about Football, and the implications that pulling the plug AFTER the League cut off, was the one sure thing to guarentee disaster. ???

[Delmary]

I have finally arrived!! My wife no less texted me this morning, saying that radio solent had reported a pink bentley with arabic number plates entering Southampton this morning!!!!!!!!!!!! We are saved!!!

Heard this also.

[SaintRichmond]

Mark Fry told me that £15m would be more than enough to buy SLH Ltd and it's assets, settle it's debts lock, stock and barrel.

 

 

£15M ??

 

So the extra £1M is for the Lock, Stock, and Barrel then ???

[Ian the Red]

We'd also get a -15 for still being in Admin by the time the League demands it in time for the new season, I'm speculating here as I only saw the date on a Skate forum, but I believe that date is June 21st.

 

Thanks to the wonderful transparency of the FL, I can't find it on their site.

 

Yeah, think you are correct, Nick, it is 6 weeks from the start of the season......

[Clapham Saint]

Mark Fry told me that £15m would be more than enough to buy SLH Ltd and it's assets, settle it's debts lock, stock and barrel.

 

Assuming this was at the begining of the process (?) and was his opening position, demanding £14m now appears a little "optimistic" to me...

[trousers]

Does Fry of Barclays actually KNOW anything about Football

 

He supports Southampton so debatable....