Clapham Saint

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......

Enough to hurt if I lost it.:smt117

FWIW I'd put money on us being taken over. There's nothing in it for Fry to not do a deal (pretty much anyway). Lets just hope I'm not proved wrong....:cool:

True... :grin:

Nobody has a clue. HTH

If it gets to 5 and they are close I expect that they will carry on until what ever time is necessary. If it is clearly going to not be resolved in a few hours but agreement looks likely they'll pick it up tomorrow (deadlines can always be slightly flexible if a deal is close).

It only turned out to be a non-runner becuase (fingers crossed) a deal is now there to be done with one of two parties. Had there been no bids at all then there is an outside chance that it would have gathered enough momentum. More likely (should it have been needed) it could have been used to top up funds for a bidder that would otherwise have fallen short of having enough funds. IMO take p would have been significantly higher had we all thought that it was the only way of saving the club. Again, at least he did something.

If there had been no bids I'm sure it would have gathered a lot more momentum. What can you (or I) say we did to organise a last ditch bid if the worst were to come to the worst? I think credit has to go to derry for being so proactive.

Lol!

The liquidation will not finish until after the shares have been sold. Liquidation is a process similar to Administrations and takes time to complete.

No he won't be. The shares would be sold as part of the liquidation process.

Imagine the You Tube video apology....

Disagree on that... All parties have some pretty outrageous claims. However IMO having a large second home and claiming to have the moat cleaned, although clearly not appropriate and an abuse of the system, is different to actively managing your properties to be able to claim second home allowance to have them refurbished but then claiming the same property is actually your primary residence (and so exempt from capital gains tax) when it comes to sell it a few months later. The first is claiming for something that clearly isn't an expense incurred as a result of being a member of parliament, the second (IMO of course) is making a conscious choice to actively defraud the expenses/taxation systems. Similar is claiming second home allowance on 3 different properties in a year as I just don't believe that the MP is question could have been actively using all of the homes being claimed for at the times claimed.

I don't understand why everyone is speculating without sorting that out as a basic need to know. :smt102

Love it.:cool:

I'm with NickG. Everybody just needs to calm down a bit (possibly easier said than done). From the publically available information I can understand the concern however if everything was completely dead and burried then Mr. Fry would say so and start the wind down process. I firmly believe that the continued negotiations are because a deal is there to be done. As much as anything else Mr. Fry will have a lot of explaining to do to Barclays if, having taken this long, he fails to complete a deal. To suggest that Mr. Fry is simply dragging things out to increase his fee is just silly (IMO). I've never met him personally but I would be amazed if he was that unprofessional. (Although I am aware of GM's views of IPs as a whole).

Have we established where they are on the scale yet? http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=13034 ;-)

Lol

I'd say "prepare for the worst, hope for the best" is the best approach right now. If you don't want to go totally nuts anyway.

True, but I really believe that the value of the assets split up is very low indeed (relatively speaking). Aside from the stadium there isn't a lot to sell and even that would be worth considerably less with no team to play in it. Jackson's farm can be sold sparately to the club anyway and so doesn't enter the equation. Edit: for mongish speeeling (again)

Lol! Love it. :cool: