Clapham Saint

me too

I wouuld have thought that this is the case. Signing them up to new contracts that sfc limited has no current means of paying could result in grounds for wrongful trading resulting in the directors being potentially at risk of legal action.

So rather than using collective resources to meet those needs at the best cost/benefit they just take the Gordon Brown approach of throwing money at the issue regardless? No wonder we are in so much debt

Very possible however it might (might) also be the case that the administrator has been faced with a choice of sticking to his guns on the 500k and seeing his only bidder walk away or stumping up the 500k himself (probably funded via barclays but he'll have to pay it back) in the expectation of securing a sale for £xmillion in the short term.

It's usual to at least try and get something up front as it proves that you're not wasting your time with somebody who isn't that serious and pulls out at the last minute. Although we don't know what happened in any of the meetings and don't have all the facts it does look as though fry may had blinked.

However SFC Ltd owes money to Notts County (for example) and is contracted to pay Player wages for a good few years. Are you going to by the shares and take on those contracts?

The Company which owned Boro back then could easily have gone into Liquidation and then sold the "Club" to a new company. This is much what we are trying to do from Administration (but with holding cos making it more complicated). When we talk about Saints going into Liquidation we are taking about an administration failing to sell the club and then becoming a liquidation. I could write several pages on the process if you'd like but 1) I can't be ar*ed and 2) I suspect I'm boring you already.

If SFC Limited is liquidated it would cease to be. The trading name of "Southampton Football Club" ™ could be bough from the liquidator by "New Co. Limited" though. To play in the league would New Co. Limited not have to also own the golden share? I would imagine that this would be more dificult to purchase. Especially if you didn't have any players and where really a brand new club, just with the same name as one which no longer existed. Will admit that I know next to nothing about the golden share business but I can't beleive that it would be as easy as just having the same name.

In a close down we will just cease to be. AFC Saints or similar would be looking for players...

I know many of the people involved relatively well (professionally speaking rather than personally) but although I've met Fry I wouldn't claim to know him well. I hope you won't take it the wrong way but for obvious reasons I'd rather shy away from specifics on idividuals either positive or negative.

He'll still be paid but it will likely be significantly reduced. There will still be some cash as he will be able to raise a bit from Jacksons Farm, SMS for development value etc. I would expect that he will be most ****ed off by potential damage to his reputation with Barclays though if the apparent brinkmanship which he is currently reported to be indulging in turns out to be what scuppers a deal.

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.

Assuming this was at the begining of the process (?) and was his opening position, demanding £14m now appears a little "optimistic" to me...

+1 soon or later he is going to have to take the deal on offer as there is nothing else in the offing. Techincally Fry could go for a breask up and close down but (as I've said on other posts) I can't see any (reasonable) circumstance where that is going to realise more than a sale of the club as a going concern.

Talks are still on going. I'm still confident.

Bit harsh on syphilis aren't you?

In practical terms (unless there is a specific FA regulations based reason for doing the above that I don't know about) you wouldn't do this. It is much cleaner to just by the shares of SFC Ltd and leave all the old debt behind for the administrator to deal with. Mr. Fry will have been talking about the shares on SFC Ltd or potentially even selling the club (not the company but the club that is run by SFC Ltd) to a brand new company.

I expect the loan has been provided for in full and hence the loss already "taken". But in that case anything that they do get will be profit in the books and so they will still want to get as much as possible.

Ok, saying they have NOTHING to negotiate with is probably a little oft but they don't have a strong hand. At the moment (as somebody said above) it's a case of shutting up and seeing who blinks first. IMO opinion the creditors have more to lose than the consortium if they **** it up. EDIT: and Pompey are NOT going to even make an offer for SMS, don't be silly

Exactly

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.

+1 You can never be 100% sure but I'd put money on this just being posturing during negotiations. I still think a deal will go through. Stay calm!!!! :cool:

More importantly..........I would!

They should dock points for teams that go into administration. That would sort out all these clubs gaining a financial advantage by ditiching debts in insolvency. Far fewer clubs would go bust and they would all be better run. oh......