Clapham Saint

I was about to write a rant about how stupid this is but think I'll just leave it at.... :rolleyes: EDIT: The ban not your post obviously

Pretty much as above, however in administration it is fairly common for time pressure to be more... um... pressured. Also the administrator will be unwilling to but together anything as a 'bible' as he would then be seen to be seen to be giving credibility to the figures. They will allow full access but won't put their name to anything to confirm that it is accurate. Chang Mai.... Going to be there in a week!

Quite. Apparently he opened the doors on the wrong side of the train. Many many people on the tube stand leaning against the doors on the opposite side to the platform. If these were opened it is a miracle that nobody fell down the gap between the train and the wall onto the live track. To claim that this driver should be reinstated is total B*ll**it and Bob Crow knows it. He is a c**t who gets off on the confrontation and would be a lot less well off if he didn't orchestrate conflicts. As for the drivers. £35k-£42k 45 days holiday For what is a low skilled job. I'm willing to bet that is a better deal than many on this site get, and all for doing a job that is done efficiently by computers on the DLR (which has driverless trains). W*nkers the lot of them.

They don't need to de-list the plc to do the deal. They just sell the shares of SFC Limited (and the stadium company) to a new holding company. That said these things do take time. My money is on the deal going through on day 21 or 20 at best.

That was my first thought too...

Wish I could use the words only and £100k in the same sentence...

At least he was doing something constructive. I have no idea what he was out trying to promote but although coming accross as a bit of a baffoon, at least he was out trying to promote a cause.

Maybe be could paraglide behind his yacht as it comes into the docks, detach and glide in a low arc accross the city before landing on the pitch?

Seen in the skies above st Mary's?

Why is it that people expect a new owner to show up by yacht? might be expensive but is hardly the most expedient mode of transport for somebody on a business trip...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/3407225.stm ?

Unfortunately I think you're trying to read too much into it mate (although it is nice to have some positive thoughts on here for a change). If (and that's IF) the two bids were identical for creditors chances are that Fry will have gone for the one that could stump up the cash quickest. Cash from a bidder not as good for the club now is better than the promise of cash at a later date from a better bidder. That said, being willing and able to pay the deposit quickly could be taken as an indication that Pinnicle have better funding in place and therefore are likely to be better for the club. I really don't think we can make a proper assessment until a deal is done and we can find out who is behind it. (Or maybe I should just shut up and stop spoiling the positive vibe)

You have got to be kidding!

:cool:

Tory? ;-)

Just guessing?

Shh! Its on SWF so it must be true. FACT

Lol. Not really. Normally you don't go around announcing deals until they are actually done. When an administrator is trying to sell a business he often can't give a potential purchaser all of the information that they would like. Often simply becuase he has only been in control for a short period and so doesn't have it. This often brings an element of uncertainty into the equation which complicates negotiations (for both sides). To be fair though deals from administration are usually completed quicker than those in normal circumstances. If this wasn't an administration situation doing at deal from first contact to completion in just 8 weeks would be pretty good going.

Can't remember the exact wording as to whether it has to be sent or received within the 8 weeks... Either way I tend to think of leaving these things to the last possible moment without good reason (and I'm not saying there isn't one) is a bit poor form.

He won't be on fixed fee. He can be on "time costs properly incurred" or as a % of realisations (i.e. the amount of money received for the assets) but not a combination or the two. There is just no way his fees are that much. How long is it that we've been in admin now? Shareholders and creditors should receive a copy of the administrator's proposals within 8 weeks. EDIT: For clarity... the proposals should include the basis of his remuneration.

There is no way in the world their fees are that high. Is the 25k per day somewhere on this thread or a different one?

Lol:D

Where on earth did you get that figure from?

I'm very pleased that the system worked out well for your mother, however I beleive that more people could have wheelchairs in the first place if a different system were employed. That said I don't have any direct experience of these matters so maybe I'm being too idealistic. Who knows?:cool:

I posted a rough comparison of sale as a going concern vs break up sale somewhere... (might not have been on this thread though) For detailed figures you'd need access to the valuations done by agents which I will be amazed if anybody on here has. Edit: found it... Right, have been reading the thread on the ipod but my laptop is knackered so I've had to wait for the Mrs to finish shoe shopping (or whatever it is she does) to borrow hers. I think the best way to look at this is what would happen to each asset in either circumstance. In broad terms... 1) Southampton FC (excluding players) Sale to consortium - Will have some value, amount depends on who you want to listen to so for simplicity let’s say £1 million? Fire sale - Ceases to exist £Nil From a creditors persective Sale wins £1m - £Nil 2) Jacksons Farm, This land can be sold separately in either scenario. If a consortium wants to buy a football club I would suggest they probably wouldn't want JF anyway. If they do want JF then they can buy it separately. Score draw 3) Staplewood. I'm not sure of the freehold/leasehold situation or restrictions on sale mentioned by some but I would suggest its probably worth more if sold to a football team wanting to use it. If the administrator thinks that he can sell the land to a developer and a consortium can't match the price then it isn't the end of the world. As mentioned by others we COULD use alternative facilities if we had to. Probably more money for creditors if the club is sold 4) The Academy House and any other non-stadium assets. As above. Would be nice to keep them but ultimately if they were sold elsewhere then it shouldn't prevent a sale of the club. Although they may be involved as "negotiating chips" probably not "deal breakers" either way. Score draw 5) Players In a sale to a consortium they will have some value but any purchaser would also be taking on the fairly substantial liability of their wages which will reduce the amount that you would be prepared to pay for them. Say £5m? In a break up basis - (Credit to SRS) All players would be able to give 14 days notice and leave. Value achieved for creditors £Nil. 6) St Mary's Slightly more complicated as the coucil comes into play. Although I'm happy to be corrected my expectation is: i) The land is worth little to a property investor. The cost of demolishing the stadium, dealing with any contamination issues from the gas works etc are likely to be prohibitive. ii) Some offices could be built on the side furthest way from the gas works but again there is nothing to stop the administrator selling the stadium but holding this stip of land back to sell elsewhere. iii) The most likely purchaser is the council who would probably pay more if they were supporting the club rather than just buying an otherwise derelict site. Again I can't see a situation whereby more money is raised by not having a football club in existence, either to buy the stadium or as a tennant for a 3rd party (coucil or otherwise) investor. Now although the above is a simplistic analysis, IMO any offer being made by a consortium would have to be truely pathetic for the creditors not to be foreced to take it eventually.