Clapham Saint

No, as I said I'm not passing judgement either way. There isn't the information to make an opinion unless you are prepared to make snap judgements based upon rumours, guesswork and frankly up made up figures. On small fact that you seem to be overlooking when deciding if BT have charged over the odds is what the actual fee is, but this is obviuosly incedental to you. You have read a statement, not issued by BT, that the fee "may rise". The jorno might be right but until BT make a request for fees it is pure speculation. Am sure you will continue to let that slide however. Why not just be pleased about the FACT that we have been saved?

I don't think it would be either appropriate or sensible for me to either defend or criticise Begbies fee. Especially by posting on a public web forum like this one! To do so would be pure speculation as I don’t know the details of what happened during the course of the administration (neither does anybody else not directly involved). GM will take my lack of comment to back up his opinion, this isn’t the case, there is simply not enough information to be able to make an informed comment. A few general points though: An administrator can charge fees either based upon time spent on the case or based on the amount of money realised but not both. In this case it will be based on time spent. There will have been more than just Mark Fry and Taylor working on the case but they also won’t have been working on it every hour of every day. The actual number of hours charged aren’t currently known, however some info on an administrators responsibilities for fees can be found here: http://www.insolvency-practitioners.org.uk/uploads/9.%20SIP%209%20-%20May%202007.pdf In particular para 3.5 on page 6… So if anybody who is a creditor wants details of the costs they can ask for them. They have to be disclosed within 28 days of the request. You can’t generalise like this. Doing the first deal available would be the quickest but might not raise the most money for creditors. There is a balance to be found to get the best result (which the administrator, as an officer of the court, is legal bound to seek to achieve). If an administrator were to continually waste time and “overcharge” he would soon find that he had a reputation for doing so and wouldn’t get any work. GM would prefer that administrators/IPs in general all died out but ultimately somebody needs to deal with insolvent companies and they need difficult qualifications to be able to do so. Somebody needs to do the job and you either need to use less regulated and qualified individuals or acknowledge that professionals with the requisite qualifications will charge more for their time, as will more knowledgeable/qualified engineers/doctors/chemists/etc. A healthy dose of scare mongering again here (but why let that get in the way of a good rant). GM you well know that the vast majority of small local businesses owed money will have been dealing with Southampton Football Club Limited not with the holding company. Southampton Football Club Limited has not been in administration and has just been purchased by an exceptionally wealthy backer and will be in a position to pay ALL of its creditors in full, to suggest otherwise is deliberate misdirection on your part.

Sounds sensible to me...

With suspensions that seems about right for Frannie

1) Who do you mean by creditors, Barclays and Aviva? 2) Why? They are creditors of SLH Plc which is no longer SFC Limited's problem. 3) What purchaser would pay £12.5m for the club and then agree to give future revenue to creditors of a different company?

Broadly speaking, SFC Limited remains unchanged and so all of its contracts will remain. I expect that these include everything directly linked to the football team i.e. player contracts, shirt sponsorship etc. SLH holdings has been ditched and left behind and so its contracts/structure are not ongoing (unless specifically included in the purchase agreement. This will include the debt owed to barclays and Aviva as well as plc status.

Exactly.

To flip that around... Why should a new owner pay when they are unable to sell to anybody else? I'd be amazed if £13m (or whatever the figure is) doesn't buy everything, including the stadium leaving all the debt behind. The stadium is not worth anything to Aviva. If they were to have refused the deall, what do you think they would have been able to do as an alternative? Yes it's a big hit for them to take but they don't really have a choice.

I imagine he'll also take out a few loans to properly finance his new investment. £5 bn sounds more likely to me. :smt007

Although you can't be 100% sure without seeing the detail of the agreement I would expect that we are now debt free.

Thank F**k for that! Get in!

A lot of people misunderstand the 75%. Aintforever is correct above, the amount paid to creditors is irrelevant in a CVA, it is getting 75% of creditors to AGREE to whatever level of payment is made which is required. There is a separate FL rule that football creditors have to paid in full, but this is a different issue. And I'd be amazed if the £15m didn't buy everything football related, including the stadium.

The creditors of the SLH Plc will be "taken out" (for want of a better phrase) by the administration. This will include Barclays and Aviva. As everbody bar the FA are well aware SFC Limited is not in administration and so debts owed by SFC Limited will remain. These will include installments due on palyers and the bulk of what is owed to HMRC.

Exactly. I was so pleased when he was announched as manager. Turned out to be a complete disaster for the club.:smt085

?!!!

He says that the consortium wanted to back down from being front runners for the good of the club... to allow a better placed consortium an opportunity. (Or words to that effect) Doesn't really make any sense to me. The exclusivity period is over. If another consortium is better placed then there is nothing to stop the administrator selling to them anyway, there is absolutely no need (or point) for them to that they are withdrawing as "front runners".

As long as a team is there I'm becoming less and less bothered about the beer!

According to section 123 of the Insolvency act there are 2 key tests 1) If the value of the Company's assets is less than that of it's liabilities (including prospective and contingent liabilities) 2) If the company is unable to pay its debts as and when they fall due. This is normally "proved" by an outstanding statutory demand which remains unsatisfied for over 21 days. In practice not of the above prove that the company is "technically insolvent". Many companies experience short term cash flow difficulties before recovering... however not being able to pay wages is never a good sign. Especially if the company in question is one where the key value is the employees (e.g. a recruitment agent which doesn't own much in the way of physical assets). Most companies unable to pay wages in the short term will ask the bank for some extra cash to get them through. If the bank says no then it doesn't look good I'm afraid. Obviously this is a generalisation and there may be other factors in this case. I'm on holiday at the moment so not logging on often but if you have anything more specific let me know and I'll reply if I can. CS

Ask Stanley. He doesn't feel right without a tan.

Scott Saints.

My worst ever was actually in the middle of the night. Woke both me and the Mrs up with a jolt and sting in the nostrels. I blamed it on the cat.

Are you sure? I'm fairly sure that I read (on here I think) something about "acquiring the assets of SLH". The assets including the shares of SFC Limited but not the shares of SLH itself which are an asset of the shareholders and not the company. Happy to be corrected but buying the shares of an insolvent company rather than the assets and then going through the hassle of de-listing would be a stupid way to go about the deal IMO. As a side note I expect the deal to be done before the end of the 21 days. If I were the administrator and the 21 days ran out, why allow them to extend? The deposit is non-refundable so why not look to keep the money and try to get some more out of one of the other parties who are apparently waiting in the wings?

What about the morning after a night on the beers? F**king horrible!! (well mine are anyway)

Just searched google images for a picture of him and found... http://shunews.shudoo.co.uk/index.php/2008/12/29/c-j-de-mooi-talks-to-shudoo-about-loving-ugg-boots/ http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00337/CJ_from_Eggheads_337006a.jpg What a t*at

Fly in 43 hours.... 3 weeks Hong Kong Bangkok Chang Mai Siem Reap (Sp?) Koh Pangan :cool: Recommendations?