trousers

I've a general question about the administration industry and not about the administration of Southampton leisure holdings so advance apologies for posting it on this thread. Are administrators allowed to engage 'ghost' consortium(s) as a tool in their armoury to raise the stakes with 'real' bidders or would that be against the rules? (morally or legally). As I say, not related to this case at all. Just idol curiosity.

Don't recall. Just lurking I think

He was logged in last week

That

Superb news

Not quite. He's Ken Tointon. Or maybe not.

Lol moment :-)

I was wondering that too but the wording on the letter suggests that it applies to all shareholders: "Please be advised that there are insufficient assets in this matter to enable any distribution to shareholders." Although, arguably, it may have been better to have said: ".....distribution to any shareholders" ?

Speaking generally, poor practice and good outcomes aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Good outcomes can also happen through luck and circumstances rather than just through skill and experience. Granted, good outcomes are probably more likely with the latter than the former.

Oh lord. The most bizarre conspiracy theory has just entered my head.

How do you know for sure that the exclusivity deposit was 'non returnable' (I.e. Other than reading about it in a newspaper) ...?

Sometimes...

I believe some people are suggesting that liebherr was trying for 3 days to make an offer to compete with pinnacle's but that Fry became 'unconntactable'. (26th - 29th may). That's just me reading between the lines though....

Did you see fry's interview at the awards ceremony FF? He didn'thave much competition!

So we couldn't honour a relatively small cheque (supposedly) and Barclays 'force' us into Admin almost immediately, whereas Southend couldn;t honour their sizeable debt to HMRC and they get several days (weeks?) to sort it out. Not that I'm complaining of course....

If only all adminstration escapes were that simple....

So, the best 'tactic' for any prospective head of a consortium (e.g. Tony Lynham, Marc Jackson, etc) is to get a name in the frame who satisfies the Administrator's "proof of funding" criteria just so you can get your foot in the 'exclusivity door', thus buying yourself time to find an actual buyer whilst the 'name' who bought you the exclusivity in the first place slips quietly away never to be heard of again.....? Trojan Horse anyone?

Richard or Mark?

"Man behind Fry's mystery Irish consortium revealed at last...."

Enjoy:

I think 'some' on here know 'something' about what went on but fair point for the majority on here.

Caption Competition

I don't think anyone is unhappy with the outcome. If Fry/Begbies are to be judged on outcome alone then, yes, he/they deserve a gong. However, I believe this thread is covering how we got to that outcome. Some are saying that it was Fry's expertise that got us to the favourable outcome. Others are suggesting there was a fair amount of luck and 'interesting' decisions along the way. That's all.

Not forgetting the curious 'coincidence' that his image and profile were removed from the Begbies Traynor website when the 'news' of his appointment was discussed on here....

Indeed. I'm sure I heard someone say that Fry became 'very difficult to get hold of' during those three days.... Somewhat blows out the "Fry had no choice" hypothesis from the SWF 'administration experts'...? Perhaps....?