jonah Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 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 I don't think the issue was that a cheque bounced, the issue was that Barclays pulled our £4m debt facility - unless we could repay that instantly, which we couldn't, we were legally obliged to call in the administrators who were left with little choice then other than to try to recover for the creditors. I'm amazed that we couldn't successfully negotiate an overdraft with a different bank to replace the Barclays one, you'd have thought all those big names at the club (inside and outside) would have enough clout between them for something like that.
SaintRichmond Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 He supports Southampton so debatable.... Good God !!!!!!!! That makes it worse He MUST have known the implications of pulling the plug AFTER the League cut off date ......... What a To**er So, WHY did he do it WHEN he did it ???.... WHO told him to ???
SaintRichmond Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 I don't think the issue was that a cheque bounced, the issue was that Barclays pulled our £4m debt facility - unless we could repay that instantly, which we couldn't, we were legally obliged to call in the administrators who were left with little choice then other than to try to recover for the creditors. I'm amazed that we couldn't successfully negotiate an overdraft with a different bank to replace the Barclays one, you'd have thought all those big names at the club (inside and outside) would have enough clout between them for something like that. Yes it does leave a rather unpleasant smell beneath the nostrils, doesn't it ?? It's almost if certain parties actually WANTED it to happen ????
Killers Knee Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 A fool and his money....we need a certified spacecadet £14m is way too high. £6m breakup value, offer £7m.
The Rover Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Assuming this was at the begining of the process (?) and was his opening position, demanding £14m now appears a little "optimistic" to me... I agree. I think we have to bear in mind that this figure was almost certainly leaked to the Echo by the Jackson camp and may not be correct - it rather depends what they are trying to achieve. If it is still Fry's asking price it suggests that either there are no genuine bidders who have been able to negotiate a reduction or that Fry thinks he still has time to d!ck around. (Perhaps he has if Leon has paid the wages for the month). I hope the end figure is a lot lower than this otherwise the club is never going to be sold and every pound over the odds that goes to Barclays and Aviva is a pound less for new players and the future of Saints.
Smirking_Saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Sorry guys, been at Uni for the past 2 days, so just a quick one. Is the pinnacle deal dead ??? Does everyone love MJ now ??? Are we ANY closer to a conclusion ??
thorpie the sinner Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Sorry guys, been at Uni for the past 2 days, so just a quick one. Is the pinnacle deal dead ??? Does everyone love MJ now ??? Are we ANY closer to a conclusion ?? Maybe Not everyone No
aintforever Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Good God !!!!!!!! That makes it worse He MUST have known the implications of pulling the plug AFTER the League cut off date ......... What a To**er So, WHY did he do it WHEN he did it ???.... WHO told him to ??? I thought the decision to place the company into admin was made by Lowe?
Smirking_Saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Maybe Not everyone No Ahh, well thats a relief. Like taking a p!ss in the cinema and realising you have not missed any of the good bits.
dubai_phil Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 A fool and his money....we need a certified spacecadet £14m is way too high. £6m breakup value, offer £7m. And in that basic fag packet calculation lies the first conundrum. It sets the budgetary expectations of possible buyers and they then add in what they think the club needs to be stabilised for at least one season in L1. Anyone looking closely at the books would see something like that, make that level of bid and then react in amazement when told it is half what is wanted. After getting past that sticking point you get hit with the non refundable deposit. Easy this M&A stuff isn't it
these things take time Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Surely Fry's having a laugh is he thinks we're worth £14m. We may owe more than that, but look at the club: . on -10 in league 1 . an excellent stadium . a team of misfits with not a hope of getting out of league 1 even without the -10. Would struggle to make more than £5m for the whole squad
thorpie the sinner Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 And in that basic fag packet calculation lies the first conundrum. It sets the budgetary expectations of possible buyers and they then add in what they think the club needs to be stabilised for at least one season in L1. Anyone looking closely at the books would see something like that, make that level of bid and then react in amazement when told it is half what is wanted. After getting past that sticking point you get hit with the non refundable deposit. Easy this M&A stuff isn't it No, lol!!!
Smirking_Saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Surely Fry's having a laugh is he thinks we're worth £14m. We may owe more than that, but look at the club: . on -10 in league 1 . an excellent stadium . a team of misfits with not a hope of getting out of league 1 even without the -10. Would struggle to make more than £5m for the whole squad Don't necersarily agree, think we would have survived if we used simple and working tactics and if JP actually realised things were not working week after week. If the team stays intact we will get promotion (in some form) IMO obviously. It's not what we are worth i don't think but what we owe to the creditors in the form of the best deal.
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 £14m is a crazy figure. £6m or £7m is a realistic price with very little prospect of any returns on that for at least the next few seasons.
Smirking_Saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Thing is though, surely if he carries on he will get nothing... na da... I can only see the only real money would come from Jackson farm and staplewood (i suppose you could build on staplewood ?) No one is going to pay a lot for a stadium with no team attached ?? Surely it is better for everyone for a DEAL to be made including all of it, 14m is not just steep it's f'n verticle imo. But then 45p in a pound is not a great return.
Ponty Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Fry and the creditors have their heads up their arses if they really think they can recover £14M from SLH, nearly 50p in the pound... Greedy bastards. I take this to mean you've had your opinion slightly changed that Fry is as much a club legend as MLT?
Stirchleysaint Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 £14m is a crazy figure. £6m or £7m is a realistic price with very little prospect of any returns on that for at least the next few seasons. It depends on what offers Fry had has for other parts of SLH. I wouldn't assume that £14m is a bluff.
monosaint Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 If the value of £14 represents the assets that the Football Club control such as the players, Stadium etc. then to me that makes sense.. Let's not forget that the players will have values assigned to them that could be recovered in Transfers should they leave. If you take Llalan, Surman, Dyer etc. Between them they are probably worth 2-3 million, maybe more..
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Posted 21 May, 2009 If the value of £14 represents the assets that the Football Club control such as the players, Stadium etc. then to me that makes sense.. Let's not forget that the players will have values assigned to them that could be recovered in Transfers should they leave. If you take Llalan, Surman, Dyer etc. Between them they are probably worth 2-3 million, maybe more.. What only £14. I'll buy it now!
Capel Saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 It depends on what offers Fry had has for other parts of SLH. I wouldn't assume that £14m is a bluff. Unless he has received an indication from this mystery overseas interested party that they are prepared to pay £14m and so Fry is going back to the other bidders to see if they want to improve their existing offers. Just a thought!
bungle Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 I take this to mean you've had your opinion slightly changed that Fry is as much a club legend as MLT? Are you suggesting that alpine might have been wrong on an issue? Surely not?!
70's Mike Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 I don't think the issue was that a cheque bounced, the issue was that Barclays pulled our £4m debt facility - unless we could repay that instantly, which we couldn't, we were legally obliged to call in the administrators who were left with little choice then other than to try to recover for the creditors. I'm amazed that we couldn't successfully negotiate an overdraft with a different bank to replace the Barclays one, you'd have thought all those big names at the club (inside and outside) would have enough clout between them for something like that. ok just seems to me that we just waved the white flag
70's Mike Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Yes it does leave a rather unpleasant smell beneath the nostrils, doesn't it ?? It's almost if certain parties actually WANTED it to happen ???? that is my conclusion the more snippets that come out, they just gave up and walked away
lordswoodsaints Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Why didn't he say right from the start 'if you ain't got £14m then don't bother wasting my time' this would have got rid of the changers and everybody would know where they stand. It could have been all sorted a month ago.....one way or another.
Saint Without a Halo Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Unless he has received an indication from this mystery overseas interested party that they are prepared to pay £14m and so Fry is going back to the other bidders to see if they want to improve their existing offers. Just a thought! Mystery ovewrseas bidder! Mrs Fry calling from abroad?
Saint Billy Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Why didn't he say right from the start 'if you ain't got £14m then don't bother wasting my time' this would have got rid of the changers and everybody would know where they stand. It could have been all sorted a month ago.....one way or another. Because its all part of the gameplay. I don't thinks Fry's statements are just for the fans ears.
DaintyDave Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 As I stated on another thread a few days ago and was shot down, it is clear from the article in the Echo that this Green group are dictating the stories to the Echo. None of the alleged figures have ever been confirmed by Fry, nor has he ever said this group has proven funds etc. Same pattern as at Bournemouth, a rent-a-quote machine making claims in the media that turned out to be simply untrue in that instance (remember the "we did provide funds, 100 grand last Monday" in the now-infamous TV interview? Which turned out to be totally false in that case. Again, I was told by a good friend who works at the Echo that Fry gives zero comment whereas this Green/Jackson group actively call the paper with "news" - they were a lot of the source for most of the stories about their group AND others over the recent days. Read the article in the context of "all the information comes from Jackson/Green calling the paper" and it makes a lot more sense why Fry hasn't responded or taken them seriously. Makes me wonder if they have ever truly proven funds, or shown any capacity to make a down payment etc, or whether they are just telling the Echo that they have. Until I see a quote from Fry this is just pie in the sky talk to me.
Marley Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 As I stated on another thread a few days ago and was shot down, it is clear from the article in the Echo that this Green group are dictating the stories to the Echo. None of the alleged figures have ever been confirmed by Fry, nor has he ever said this group has proven funds etc. Same pattern as at Bournemouth, a rent-a-quote machine making claims in the media that turned out to be simply untrue in that instance (remember the "we did provide funds, 100 grand last Monday" in the now-infamous TV interview? Which turned out to be totally false in that case. Again, I was told by a good friend who works at the Echo that Fry gives zero comment whereas this Green/Jackson group actively call the paper with "news" - they were a lot of the source for most of the stories about their group AND others over the recent days. Read the article in the context of "all the information comes from Jackson/Green calling the paper" and it makes a lot more sense why Fry hasn't responded or taken them seriously. Makes me wonder if they have ever truly proven funds, or shown any capacity to make a down payment etc, or whether they are just telling the Echo that they have. Until I see a quote from Fry this is just pie in the sky talk to me. I hope you're wrong, but think you're right :-(
Wade Garrett Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 As I stated on another thread a few days ago and was shot down, it is clear from the article in the Echo that this Green group are dictating the stories to the Echo. None of the alleged figures have ever been confirmed by Fry, nor has he ever said this group has proven funds etc. Same pattern as at Bournemouth, a rent-a-quote machine making claims in the media that turned out to be simply untrue in that instance (remember the "we did provide funds, 100 grand last Monday" in the now-infamous TV interview? Which turned out to be totally false in that case. Again, I was told by a good friend who works at the Echo that Fry gives zero comment whereas this Green/Jackson group actively call the paper with "news" - they were a lot of the source for most of the stories about their group AND others over the recent days. Read the article in the context of "all the information comes from Jackson/Green calling the paper" and it makes a lot more sense why Fry hasn't responded or taken them seriously. Makes me wonder if they have ever truly proven funds, or shown any capacity to make a down payment etc, or whether they are just telling the Echo that they have. Until I see a quote from Fry this is just pie in the sky talk to me. That would be true to form for Mr Jackson. He seems to get off on it for some reason.
rallyboy Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Give me £14M and I will take Eastleigh, Havant or Salisbury into the Championship, that is how overpriced our club sounds. Let's remember that this particular money will be going out of football, not into the future of the club - some people are still confused thinking that we will be able to spend £14M on players... Fry - stop faffing about and get it sorted.
OldNick Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 As I stated on another thread a few days ago and was shot down, it is clear from the article in the Echo that this Green group are dictating the stories to the Echo. None of the alleged figures have ever been confirmed by Fry, nor has he ever said this group has proven funds etc. Same pattern as at Bournemouth, a rent-a-quote machine making claims in the media that turned out to be simply untrue in that instance (remember the "we did provide funds, 100 grand last Monday" in the now-infamous TV interview? Which turned out to be totally false in that case. Again, I was told by a good friend who works at the Echo that Fry gives zero comment whereas this Green/Jackson group actively call the paper with "news" - they were a lot of the source for most of the stories about their group AND others over the recent days. Read the article in the context of "all the information comes from Jackson/Green calling the paper" and it makes a lot more sense why Fry hasn't responded or taken them seriously. Makes me wonder if they have ever truly proven funds, or shown any capacity to make a down payment etc, or whether they are just telling the Echo that they have. Until I see a quote from Fry this is just pie in the sky talk to me. Fry has a#### about for a couple of weeks, at first he gave me confidence but as he loses the bidders he is risking our club.Yes we all have laid down be rogered because we accept he has to get the best he can for the creditors but it is now getting to a stage where his life is very easy and we are eating out of his hand.At the same time he is potentially shafting us of our club, is it time for fans to let him know that we are not going to be happy if he lets us go?
wireframebox Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Assuming I'm understanding things correctly... I'm finding it hard to understand why people can't see £14m for a Football club, a training ground, playing squad (despite how mediocre) and a £32m Stadium (with no mortgage) is not good value? To put it in to perspective, that's how much Craig Bellamy cost Man City in January!? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_city/article5544678.ece
Saint Billy Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 As I stated on another thread a few days ago and was shot down, it is clear from the article in the Echo that this Green group are dictating the stories to the Echo. None of the alleged figures have ever been confirmed by Fry, nor has he ever said this group has proven funds etc. Same pattern as at Bournemouth, a rent-a-quote machine making claims in the media that turned out to be simply untrue in that instance (remember the "we did provide funds, 100 grand last Monday" in the now-infamous TV interview? Which turned out to be totally false in that case. Again, I was told by a good friend who works at the Echo that Fry gives zero comment whereas this Green/Jackson group actively call the paper with "news" - they were a lot of the source for most of the stories about their group AND others over the recent days. Read the article in the context of "all the information comes from Jackson/Green calling the paper" and it makes a lot more sense why Fry hasn't responded or taken them seriously. Makes me wonder if they have ever truly proven funds, or shown any capacity to make a down payment etc, or whether they are just telling the Echo that they have. Until I see a quote from Fry this is just pie in the sky talk to me. But to be fair, 99% of what we are hearing is bull**** from all sides involved. Plus, there are many posters on here at present with different agendas.
derry Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Assuming this was at the begining of the process (?) and was his opening position, demanding £14m now appears a little "optimistic" to me... It was, but wouldn't it depend on Aviva and Barclay's expectations?
OldNick Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Assuming I'm understanding things correctly... I'm finding it hard to understand why people can't see £14m for a Football club, a training ground, playing squad (despite how mediocre) and a £32m Stadium (with no mortgage) is not good value? To put it in to perspective, that's how much Craig Bellamy cost Man City in January!? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_city/article5544678.eceit may be good from the outside but we dont see the figures.Add to that the club was losing £ms a year and so that is not so good.
Give it to Ron Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 it may be good from the outside but we dont see the figures.Add to that the club was losing £ms a year and so that is not so good. But most of the millions going out Nick were the wage bill, payments to sacked managers, gardening leave and compensation. Once we have the final cull and an income from ST's we should be in a far better place financially.
krissyboy31 Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Assuming I'm understanding things correctly... I'm finding it hard to understand why people can't see £14m for a Football club, a training ground, playing squad (despite how mediocre) and a £32m Stadium (with no mortgage) is not good value? To put it in to perspective, that's how much Craig Bellamy cost Man City in January!? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_city/article5544678.ece I suspect that at least one and probably most of serious parties would have been prepared to pay that if we had avoided relegation and the 10 point penalty. Fry would have known that these parties would have had a different valuation under the relegation scenario. What he and the negotiating parties may not have factored in is the 10 point deduction because they were led to believe we had no case to answer. This may be where the shortfall between original bid and money on the table, comes in?
Flyer Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Assuming I'm understanding things correctly... I'm finding it hard to understand why people can't see £14m for a Football club, a training ground, playing squad (despite how mediocre) and a £32m Stadium (with no mortgage) is not good value? To put it in to perspective, that's how much Craig Bellamy cost Man City in January!? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_city/article5544678.ece Id be very surprised if the stadium is including in that. Why would Aviva wipe off so much of the debt when Saints are still in business? Theyd be better off repossessing it and renting it out as an income stream that will never end. Sounds to me like hes saying they need £6m for the overdraft, £1m for the farm and the rest for the shareholders of the club so hes only valuing the club at £7m.
krissyboy31 Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Id be very surprised if the stadium is including in that. Why would Aviva wipe off so much of the debt when Saints are still in business? Theyd be better off repossessing it and renting it out as an income stream that will never end. Sounds to me like hes saying they need £6m for the overdraft, £1m for the farm and the rest for the shareholders of the club so hes only valuing the club at £7m. Nope. £14million for the lot.
notnowcato Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Nope. £14million for the lot. According to who and what does that investment offer??
Flyer Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Nope. £14million for the lot. So does it make sense to you that Saints get a free stadium thrown in? Does a man who goes bankrupt just get given his house for free? Give me reasons why Aviva would write off tens of millions rather than rent out the stadium to Saints? The overall buying price would be cheaper meaning there would be a better chance of the club being sold.
slickmick Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 it may be good from the outside but we dont see the figures.Add to that the club was losing £ms a year and so that is not so good. Less £2m a year on morgage payments. Doesn't sound right to me. Got a horrible feeling that out of this quoted £14m, a percentage is going to shareholders.
martel Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Assuming I'm understanding things correctly... I'm finding it hard to understand why people can't see £14m for a Football club, a training ground, playing squad (despite how mediocre) and a £32m Stadium (with no mortgage) is not good value? To put it in to perspective, that's how much Craig Bellamy cost Man City in January!? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_city/article5544678.ece I have to agree wireframe, however, it also highlights how mental the premiership has become when it comes to money, who would have thought at the start of the premiership that a player is worth more than a whole club. INSANE.
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Got a horrible feeling that out of this quoted £14m, a percentage is going to shareholders. Wrong.
hypochondriac Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 So does it make sense to you that Saints get a free stadium thrown in? Does a man who goes bankrupt just get given his house for free? Give me reasons why Aviva would write off tens of millions rather than rent out the stadium to Saints? The overall buying price would be cheaper meaning there would be a better chance of the club being sold. Fry has already been quoted as saying he wants to do a deal with the stadium.(I think)
Pancake Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Nope. £14million for the lot. So Aviva, who we are led to believe, haven't had a missed payment from Southampton LH or FC or whoever, are willing to accept 43p per £1 when they could easily (yes easily) collect the full amount from new owners if they continued the mortgage? Im not buying that at all.
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Posted 21 May, 2009 We must not forget Fry is trying to sell SLH, not SFC. My own personal view is £10m+ is going to Aviva,the rest to Barclay's and any others that are due some money.
sandwichsaint Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 I've got it now, feeder club to Man City.... For the price of a Craig Bellamy they can have a whole shadow club to park their foreign youngsters and their spare squad players and the players they buy so-no-one-else-can-have-them.... Fry, get on the phone now; I'm sure the paperwork on joint ownership will be a mere bagatelle to the super-rich?
Pancake Posted 21 May, 2009 Posted 21 May, 2009 Fry has already been quoted as saying he wants to do a deal with the stadium.(I think) I dont doubt that, but it would more likely be that the stadium mortgage was purchased by the new owners, rather than the physical stadium itself.
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