slickmick Posted 21 May, 2009 Share 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. Presuming Aviva would be getting £9m-£10m out of that £14m, it would mean they are writing off about £13m-£14m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Wrong. Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 It was, but wouldn't it depend on Aviva and Barclay's expectations? I wondered about this. Does the Administrator have to get approval for any agreement he makes with a buyer from the major creditors or is he a free agent in this regard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Presuming Aviva would be getting £9m-£10m out of that £14m, it would mean they are writing off about £13m-£14m.Thats peanuts compared to what they have wrote off due to they're US subprime loses. At least they're getting something back, its better than nothing at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Whats the difference between him and Leon Crouch ? Both may have many shortcomings but at least they are trying to make a difference, and in different ways they may have ensured the club has a future. LOL whats the difference !! LOL hah ha Dear oh dear, priceless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchen Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 (edited) Wow, 4 pages of speculation. None of us knows what is going on in the negotiations. The Echo has put forward a theory, possibly given to them by one of the prospective purchasers, but their story contains no direct quotes from Fry. Why do people on here assume that they know better than the man charged with raising as much as possible for the creditors? And let's not forget that is why he is there. When we entered administration the future of our club became secondary to paying back what we owe. I despair when I read comments like "Fry doesn't know what he's doing" or "Fry needs to take what's on offer." In the same way I cringed when I read all those "Fry is wonderful" quotes a couple of weeks ago (from many of the same people). I have no idea how good Fry is at his job but I suspect that Begbies Traynor would not put a total dimwit in charge of such a high profile administration. Face it, we don't know. One or two people may know a little bit they've gleaned from the bidders or from insiders at SMS but Fry has proved to be quite leakproof and none of us know what is happening for sure. And this is how it should be. We cannot judge how good a job he is doing until he has finished doing it. Edited 21 May, 2009 by itchen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 can the administrators not sell off whatever assets they've valued at sum £14m and then sell the football club for whatever is on offer? a football club with no training ground and no stadium and no jacksons farm isn't ideal but it's better than no football cub at all. i don't buy the idea that they can sell footballers if they are going to fold up the club. the players will be able to hold out until the club folds up and take a signing on bonus for a good proportion of whatever their transfer fee would have been, if not more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian the Red Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Norwich Union or whatever they are called now settled at I think £8m on a £38m loan to Ipswichs FC on their stadium a couple of year ago. You have to look at the overall situation. SFC has paid off £10m plus the interest over what 9 years? So they will take a significantly lower figure than the £24m outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StInky Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 It may be helpful to detail the objectives of administration as per the Insolvency Act:- A. To rescue the company as a going concern B. To achieve a better result for the Company's creditors as a whole than would be likely if the Company were wound up (without first being in administration), failing which C. To realise property in order to make a distribution to one or more secured or preferential creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 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. The point is no new owners are going to want to be saddled with a mortgage so if Aviva want anything back they are going to have to take a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Wow, 4 pages of speculation. None of us knows what is going on in the negotiations. The Echo has put forward a theory, possibly given to them by one of the prospective purchasers, but their story contains no direct quotes from Fry. Why do people on here assume that they know better than the man charged with raising as much as possible for the creditors? And let's not forget that is why he is there. When we entered administration the future of our club became secondary to paying back what we owe. I despair when I read comments like "Fry doesn't know what he's doing" or "Fry needs to take what's on offer." In the same way I cringed when I read all those "Fry is wonderful" quotes a couple of weeks ago (from many of the same people). I have no idea how good Fry is at his job but I suspect that Begbies Traynor would not put a total dimwit in charge of such a high profile administration. Face it, we don't know. One or two people may know a little bit they've gleaned from the bidders or from insiders at SMS but Fry has proved to be quite leakproof and none of us know what is happening for sure. And this is how it should be. We cannot judge how good a job he is doing until he has finished doing it. Some common sense at last Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 The point is no new owners are going to want to be saddled with a mortgage so if Aviva want anything back they are going to have to take a hit. Why wouldn't the new owners want to take on the perfectly serviceable mortgage? It wasnt that that took us under, it was the debt with the Bank (basically). If the new owners can clear off the other debt and leave themselves with the stadium mortgage only, they need to pull in 15k per week to cover this (as stated on here many times). If they can bring in gates like that - and why not, all the anti-Lowe fans will flood back, surely - they will be in a better position that any board for the last 5 or so years. Aviva will know how the previous boards set out their stall in terms of payments and ring fenced monies and will know that as long as there is a club to play at SMS, they stand a really reasonable chance of getting payment in full each month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Wow, 4 pages of speculation. None of us knows what is going on in the negotiations. The Echo has put forward a theory, possibly given to them by one of the prospective purchasers, but their story contains no direct quotes from Fry. Why do people on here assume that they know better than the man charged with raising as much as possible for the creditors? And let's not forget that is why he is there. When we entered administration the future of our club became secondary to paying back what we owe. I despair when I read comments like "Fry doesn't know what he's doing" or "Fry needs to take what's on offer." In the same way I cringed when I read all those "Fry is wonderful" quotes a couple of weeks ago (from many of the same people). I have no idea how good Fry is at his job but I suspect that Begbies Traynor would not put a total dimwit in charge of such a high profile administration. Face it, we don't know. One or two people may know a little bit they've gleaned from the bidders or from insiders at SMS but Fry has proved to be quite leakproof and none of us know what is happening for sure. And this is how it should be. We cannot judge how good a job he is doing until he has finished doing it.Well Fry has not denied or confirmed that he wants £14m, so there maybe a flicker of truth in it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 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. yes and L1 gates and admission prices. The clubs revenue will be cut of the tv monies lost , matchday revenue , shop revenue and advertising revenue.We need the cull just to offset that let alone paying the staff.The wage bill is said to be in the region of 500k a month now, so we lose 100k by players leaving that still leaves us with an enormous amount to pay out on L1 revenes.Mandaric backed Leicester to the tune of 10m last season, we wont have that luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 yes and L1 gates and admission prices. The clubs revenue will be cut of the tv monies lost , matchday revenue , shop revenue and advertising revenue.We need the cull just to offset that let alone paying the staff.The wage bill is said to be in the region of 500k a month now, so we lose 100k by players leaving that still leaves us with an enormous amount to pay out on L1 revenes.Mandaric backed Leicester to the tune of 10m last season, we wont have that luxury. Sorry I dont think there is that big a drop between the CCC and Div 1 in terms of revenue from TV money, we also have an extra cup competition to bring in more gate money! Shop revenue I can't see being much different and in fact if we have a new away kit will bring in more money than last year when I believe we didnt change kit? Do we not also have the ST money to come in to offset the lower wage bills etc perhaps I am being naive but I am clinging to the fact that a new board/manager with no baggage just may see more people renew than were going to by the end of the season if Lowe/Wilde were still here. A successful campaign will see bigger gates....we just need that initial investment and the correct choice of manager now the rest will follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Sorry I dont think there is that big a drop between the CCC and Div 1 in terms of revenue from TV money, we also have an extra cup competition to bring in more gate money! Shop revenue I can't see being much different and in fact if we have a new away kit will bring in more money than last year when I believe we didnt change kit? Do we not also have the ST money to come in to offset the lower wage bills etc perhaps I am being naive but I am clinging to the fact that a new board/manager with no baggage just may see more people renew than were going to by the end of the season if Lowe/Wilde were still here. A successful campaign will see bigger gates....we just need that initial investment and the correct choice of manager now the rest will follow.the investor will look at it from the worst case i would assume and will not look at figures that are rosy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Presuming Aviva would be getting £9m-£10m out of that £14m, it would mean they are writing off about £13m-£14m. Thats still very stupid when they could collect the full amount or repossess it and charge rent. I think the mortgage will still need to be paid off as usual. Remember, its Frys job to get the creditors as much money as possible, not to get Saints the best deal and obviously getting the stadium at half price is the best deal for Saints, not Aviva. I dont see Aviva writing off 13-14m unless the club is wound up and no one wants that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 the investor will look at it from the worst case i would assume and will not look at figures that are rosy. Which would explain why out of the "34" there are now one and a maybe, that don't quite add up to a wing and a prayer but we still hope they will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 (edited) Thats still very stupid when they could collect the full amount or repossess it and charge rent. I think the mortgage will still need to be paid off as usual. Remember, its Frys job to get the creditors as much money as possible, not to get Saints the best deal and obviously getting the stadium at half price is the best deal for Saints, not Aviva. I dont see Aviva writing off 13-14m unless the club is wound up and no one wants that to happen.Well thats the idea to get some money in now (as much as possible) as who's to say, whoever takes us over might not have the means to sustain us, and go bust anyway. Then they'd get nothing! Always best cut your loses while you can recoup something than nothing at all, dont you think. Edited 21 May, 2009 by SOTONS EAST SIDE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff Saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Thats still very stupid when they could collect the full amount or repossess it and charge rent. I think the mortgage will still need to be paid off as usual. Remember, its Frys job to get the creditors as much money as possible, not to get Saints the best deal and obviously getting the stadium at half price is the best deal for Saints, not Aviva. I dont see Aviva writing off 13-14m unless the club is wound up and no one wants that to happen. You miss the point a bit i think. Aviva might well force us to be wound up if they won't budge on the figure they are asking for. Meaning they will probably end up with nothing, or a very small fee for the land. Getting £7mil would be viewed as better than nothing. Also a football stadium is different to a man losing a house. Lot's of people want houses so Aviva can flog the house off. How many people want a stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 You miss the point a bit i think. Aviva might well force us to be wound up if they won't budge on the figure they are asking for. Meaning they will probably end up with nothing, or a very small fee for the land. Getting £7mil would be viewed as better than nothing. Also a football stadium is different to a man losing a house. Lot's of people want houses so Aviva can flog the house off. How many people want a stadium? TBH I think you miss the point a bit. Aviva hold a charge on the stadium and land. They can repossess SMS and still claim money for the balance between what they lent on it and what its worth now. Making them a chicken feed offer will just result in them saying thanks but no thanks -we'll sell to a developer. SMS is on a big site. The property crash just means the land is worth a bit less, not next to worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Thats still very stupid when they could collect the full amount or repossess it and charge rent. I think the mortgage will still need to be paid off as usual. Remember, its Frys job to get the creditors as much money as possible, not to get Saints the best deal and obviously getting the stadium at half price is the best deal for Saints, not Aviva. I dont see Aviva writing off 13-14m unless the club is wound up and no one wants that to happen. Collect the full amount from where exactly? And who in their right mind is going to rent a stadium for anything even close to comparable to the interest that would be due under normal circumstances? They are going to take a hit and will have accepted as much ages ago. The question is how much. This depends on how much somebody (consortium or developer) is prepared to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint77 Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 TBH I think you miss the point a bit. Aviva hold a charge on the stadium and land. They can repossess SMS and still claim money for the balance between what they lent on it and what its worth now. Making them a chicken feed offer will just result in them saying thanks but no thanks -we'll sell to a developer. SMS is on a big site. The property crash just means the land is worth a bit less, not next to worthless. sms is built on contaminated land it can never be developed so this is not an option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share 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? Really, as an administrator, what is the f**king point of that post ? Isnt there a site rule about sarcastic remarks ? If he saved the club by keeping us going and negotiating a buyer, I said his role in our history would be like MLTs. I still stand by that, even if it now appears he is actually an obstacle. Also remember his is a f**king go-between. Ultimately he is a negotiator, and if the creditors wont play ball, the worst that can be said of him is that he is a shiiite negotiator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Are you suggesting that alpine might have been wrong on an issue? Surely not?! He can suggest all he wants - doesnt make him right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share 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 Because assets are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. No-one is willing to pay £14M for the assets of SLH, whether as a going concern or broken-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Alpine, you're glorious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Alpine, you're glorious. What an assinine response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Lightjaw Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 sms is built on contaminated land it can never be developed so this is not an option ah-ha!! That explains why my offspring have 4 arms and eight eyes. Hurrah for Southampton City Council and the total disregard for my health. :mad: p.s. small tip ... To cure a cough: take a hair from the coughing person's head, put it between two slices of buttered bread, feed it to a dog, and say, "Eat well you hound, may you be sick and I be sound.". Pesky disused gas work site eh! And they say smoking is bad for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 (edited) sms is built on contaminated land it can never be developed so this is not an option Not true. ex Gasworks sites have been developed all across the country. Greenwich in London is one example. http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/greenwich-peninsula Edited 21 May, 2009 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 What an assinine response. I take it back. "Asinine", btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 I take it back. "Asinine", btw. Pathetic. I had a bit more respect for you than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 I don't believe that for a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Not true. ex Gasworks sites have been developed all across the country. Greenwich in London is one example. It is contaminated land. Saint77 is not correct when he says it can't ever be used but it would take a lengthy and very costly procedure to get it into a decent state for development, much more costly than the land could realise in the current climate (and probably several years to come). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Not true. ex Gasworks sites have been developed all across the country. Greenwich in London is one example. http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/greenwich-peninsula But at what cost? It's hugely expensive to decontaminate land to a level acceptable for housing development. Considering that most major developers are scaling down their land banks, I can't see any developer buying the land given the cost of remediation. And that is supposing that the Council gives planning permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint77 Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 It is contaminated land. Saint77 is not correct when he says it can't ever be used but it would take a lengthy and very costly procedure to get it into a decent state for development, much more costly than the land could realise in the current climate (and probably several years to come). correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 It is contaminated land. Saint77 is not correct when he says it can't ever be used but it would take a lengthy and very costly procedure to get it into a decent state for development, much more costly than the land could realise in the current climate (and probably several years to come). That was my understanding about the land - it would cost more to decontaminate than it would to purchase (unless your the council of course ;-)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 I don't believe that for a second. Really ? Remember our PMs a while back ? Why are you acting so stupid at the moment ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 But at what cost? It's hugely expensive to decontaminate land to a level acceptable for housing development. Considering that most major developers are scaling down their land banks, I can't see any developer buying the land given the cost of remediation. And that is supposing that the Council gives planning permission. Its not actually that expensive. You take off the topsoil put a non permeable membrane down and build over. You proabably wouldnt want to eat vegetables grown in the garden, but since the site would almost certainly be flats or offices, its not that relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 That was my understanding about the land - it would cost more to decontaminate than it would to purchase (unless your the council of course ;-)). You do realise people live there already? My sister lived for years in a gas board flat in Brittania road. Were not talking about Chernobyl here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Its not actually that expensive. You take off the topsoil put a non permeable membrane down and build over. You proabably wouldnt want to eat vegetables grown in the garden, but since the site would almost certainly be flats or offices, its not that relevant. Hmm that's not my experience. I remember an outrageous amount being quoted to remediate ex gasworks land just to provide temporary hospital carparking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchen Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Really ? Remember our PMs a while back ? Why are you acting so stupid at the moment ? Alpine and Ponty, sitting in a tree... Bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint77 Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Its not actually that expensive. You take off the topsoil put a non permeable membrane down and build over. You proabably wouldnt want to eat vegetables grown in the garden, but since the site would almost certainly be flats or offices, its not that relevant. it would cost a fortune and the figures wouldnt stack up end of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Not true. ex Gasworks sites have been developed all across the country. Greenwich in London is one example. http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/greenwich-peninsula But apart from the cost, which would not be financially viable for a site stuck between a gasworks, cement works and a bunch of chav flats in a **** hole area of town, they would need to get planning permission from a council who have made it plainly obvious they want Southampton to have a stadium. Also didn't the council gift the land to the club for the purpose of building a stadium because no one else wanted it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Really ? Remember our PMs a while back ? Why are you acting so stupid at the moment ? Stupid? What else can I do? I'm not about to start abusing you back, am I? FWIW, you did start the daft thread comparing MF to MLT, and every now and then you have to accept that something like that will come back and bite you on the arse. There was no malice in my post, just ribbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 it would cost a fortune and the figures wouldnt stack up end of Sounds like Northam to me. http://www.eukn.org/eukn/themes/Urban_Policy/Urban_environment/Urban_renewal/Brownfield_development/gasworks-estate_1044.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Why haven't we got any super rich fans like Brighton who fancy getting involved? Come on, WHY... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Sounds like Northam to me. http://www.eukn.org/eukn/themes/Urban_Policy/Urban_environment/Urban_renewal/Brownfield_development/gasworks-estate_1044.html Good scheme - but you can see that a partnership was drawn up between the local council and a developer. I honestly can't see Southampton City Council doing a similar thing (providing the remediation, providing the infrastructure in the form of services / service roads etc.) at a time when both councils and developers are strapped for cash. I know of a similar remediation project in East Anglia (that I've audited) that has experienced all sorts of costs, problems and show-stopping because of contaminated land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Good scheme - but you can see that a partnership was drawn up between the local council and a developer. I honestly can't see Southampton City Council doing a similar thing (providing the remediation, providing the infrastructure in the form of services / service roads etc.) at a time when both councils and developers are strapped for cash. I know of a similar remediation project in East Anglia (that I've audited) that has experienced all sorts of costs, problems and show-stopping because of contaminated land. I'm not saying the site isnt without problems, but as part of a wider development opening up access to the river it would be a goldmine for any long view investor. The property market will be buoyant again in 3-5 years, so if you want to launch a scheme like this you'd have to start planning, ooh, about now. Its dangerous to take Aviva for mugs and think they dont have other options than accepting whatever pittance a bidder for the club might deign to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Sounds like Northam to me. http://www.eukn.org/eukn/themes/Urban_Policy/Urban_environment/Urban_renewal/Brownfield_development/gasworks-estate_1044.html Bit of a difference between regenerating a derelict site with the help of the council and bulldozing an recently built asset of the city and replacing it with flats against the wishes of the council and the people of the city. 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