derry

Administration is very costly and I believe comes out of available assets. Another nail in the coffin, I presume the longer it goes on and the more people involved the greater the cost

If the money is given to the football club it would not go to the administrator as the FC is still solvent,trading and not in administration. Count the money, open a bank account aned send the club the cheque.

I was told there was a meeting between the bank and Lowe/wilde where the bank asked them what they were prepared to put in and I understand the answer was nothing. That was the week Crouch met Lowe/Wilde and made his offer, whilst Lowe/Wilde intimated they would resign if he came up with £6m.

In my view that the Saints Trust are a tainted vehicle and only a new untainted organisation free of any association with the trust could take this initiative forward.

I think the perception with potential investors was the over value put on their shares by the Lowe/Wilde axis and their ability to block any deal. The position now is that the value of the club is purely what is on offer. There are interested parties and whether that will become an acceptable offer only time will tell. The likes of Salz, Davies or anybody else now looking to buy the club can deal with the administrators with a clean slate.

I have just spoken to the administrators, the person there dealing with the administration spoke to me at length and expressed the view that they are interested in any initiative that benefits the company, much as we expected. There have been expressions of interest but the person dealing with those wasn't in the office, but would get back to me today to talk about the situation. I will post the information here.

The sort of workable committee/board/structure for a trust could be a committee of a 7 with a quorum of 5. A minimum majority of 2 therefore no casting vote for a chairman. Too many becomes unworkable and I've seen casting votes allow dominant chairmen to misrule, as happened with SLH a couple of years back. At least 50% +1 from contributors with less than £10000 contributed, elected by ballot after the initial launch, this would stop a large investor highjcking the whole show. I suggest initially a term of 2 years with the three lowest votes elected for initially 1 year then all elected for 2 years after the first year. Just a few overnight ideas. I don't go for the MP input as I feel politics is tainted by asociation but I do go for high profile figures of inegrity to be involved on a co-opted or presidential/vice presidential basis.

I take it thats a no then.

Absolutely essential.

I will try to contact the administrator in the morning and post his response on this thread. I don't see the money chucked into the existing bottomless pit. If there is a viable response say £20/25m to buy the club for a nominal sum, pay off the £6m debt and service the mortgage leaving a tidy sum as working capital, that would be great, however the ideal solution is for a substantial acceptable bid from the likes of Salz/Davies.

It's the political baggage that comes with it is the problem for me. I think as there is already more than £150,000 pledged in such a short time from such a small number this could be a real runner. The administrator then the bank/bond holder would have to be consulted in the first instance. If it is worth taking forward the initial infrastructure could be set up pretty quickly.

I'm happy for anything that saves the club, however I can't forget the 20% of shareholders that were never organised and ignored by the previous combatants in the boardroom. I don't want to see that happen. I must admit I'm more for one or the other, however if Salz set up a bid with substantial investment from the likes of Gavyn Davies etc and bought the club that would be a result for me.

This is a rescue attempt, the tv ad says it all, your investment can decrease as well as increase. This idea for me, is to buy a share of a supporters owned football club and get a vote. Everything else you pay for.

Allowing the Saints Trust to have anything to do with this would kill it stone dead. I think a lot of people would walk away, I know I would. They are a busted flush, this idea needs new faces and and an untainted reputation.

The only problem with that from my point of view joining the fan with the corporate would only work one way. The fan would be on the outside looking in unless the shareholding was a majority, allowing a proper say in the election of directors and the ability to remove potential 6% dictators.

I take it he is talking to the administrator, If he is serious, with serious backing then we don't have to try and go through the trauma of trying to raise the funds through the fans. It would be helpful for guidance before we go too far.

It's a football club, in my view every penny in funds the club and no bloody freeloaders. This is a rescue FFS. In my view the elected directors pay for their seats and the shareholders all get a go at the directors box.

Initially, this is testing the response, where I come from, if the response is significant, a proper shareholders trust would have to be set up, the appeal publicised, the administrator brought in, significant people of proven integrity involved together with an active number of organisers to carry out the donkey work. Initially no money taken but the mechanism put in place and provided the scheme is a runner and supported by the administrator, bank and bondholders then the money could be collected.

If each share is set at £100, then any figure could be pledged in multiples of £100. Just post it and it can be counted up if below the £500. If a few want to club together to take a share just nominate a holder. We should know by monday whether this could be a runner, worth taking it on to the organisation, publication and the administrator.

No only printed in the Echo, it's not on the website, fill your boots I've got cramp.

I've asked for a poll, but no movement yet, My view is to set up a poll and see over say this weekend how much support then go from there. No timewasters, and definitely has to be up front and watertight, no politics at all.

200,000 on the club database. It would have to be democratic and incapable of highjacking. The more shares bought the more money in the kitty. If somebody came in with a million it would give 10000 shares but be outnumbered 20 to 1.

The statement is printed in the Echo above Wilde's statement therefore no link, I didn't see it on their site.

If there is enough of a response the administrator would need to be brought on board. Mods could this be a sticky for the time being, maybe with a poll type of table with amounts such as 100 200 300 400 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 more. So that interested people could easily register their intent.

"Barclays has been working alongside Southampton Leisure Holdings' directors, shareholders and advisors to find solutions to a range of significant and well publicised issues the company has faced in recent months. While the bank's position in this instance is only one of providing an overdraft facility, not equity investment, the key issue now facing Southampton Leisure Holdings is one of requiring substantial further investment. However and despite ongoing efforts by Barclays to find a suitable solution and urge various existing investors to the table, sufficient investment to support the company in it's present structure has not yet been secured. Barclays will continue to work closely with company management to find the best outcome possible". It seems the existing investors weren't prepared to invest. What a surprise!