Clapham Saint

No reason not to take orders, just as long as they don't take the cash.

I don't have the exact wording of the legislation to hand, however when a company is insolvent (or of doubtful solvency as SFC Limited is should no buyer be found), its directors have a duty to consider the interests of creditors above those of shareholders. Under the Insolvency Act 1986, directors will be held personally liable for wrongful trading if a subsequently appointed liquidator can establish that, under the board’s direction, the company continued to trade and incurred credit when the board knew or should have known that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid insolvent liquidation. The bit about "no reasonable prospect" is going to get some posters panicking and I can hear the "we're all doomed" cries already but please don't. Although I'm not at all ITK it is usual that directors (and the accountants and solicitors that advise them) will always look to avoid risk where ever possible. This generally means that if there is even a small chance of liquidation then deposits won't be taken "just in case" because the risk to the directors personally is not something that they are prepared to take on, even if the chances of them being liable are very very small. It could be argued that once they were confident that a deal was close to being done then they could take the deposits (the treatment of which could then be included somewhere in the sale agreement). However any purchaser would usually prefer to take the deposits themselves and use them as working capital and so there is no reason to take the deposits by that point. If a deal can't be done then the directors won't take deposits because they will be personally liable. If a deal can be done then the directors won't take deposits because the purchaser will want to take them themselves. Either way (and FWIW I think we are looking at the latter) season tickets won't be on sale until this is all resolved. EDIT: not sure how I *****ed up the font there... oops.

+1 :cool:

2+2 = whatever you can dream up. Don't you just love wild speculation? :smt115

http://bean-counter.mybrute.com/fight/154921004 Get in. Hairy nut sack is my b***ch!

I suspect becuase if they need to plough in an extra £5m this will need to be financed from somewhere. The most obvious way of doing this is to reduce the offer made to Mr.Fry. So without the 10 point deduction - £10m to buy the club, £20m to get to the Prem With the points deduction they expect it to cost £25m to get to the prem and so have to reduce the offer to Mr. Fry to £5m. (Numbers completely made up and just round numbers plucked from thin air)

Opened this tread expecting a new "manifesto" from an ITKer. Shame I'm in an open plan office as I have just snorted coffee out of my nose and am now in pain and looking like a ****.:smt082:smt081

I'm not sure what everybody was expecting Fry to do. Pump his own money in? He's here to do a job not to walk on water. FWIW I gather that there is a board/investor meeting this morning. I have absolutely no idea what stage of the process they are at but fingers crossed.

Agreed. Still can't beat it though. If it wasn;t so nice I wouldn't be such a fat ****

I'm not 100% on the football league rules but the football league require the CVA in order to protect football related creditors and prevent clubs gaining an unfair advantage by clearing away a significant proportion of their debts (or words to that effect, I'm sure somebody can correct any error). Insolvency law prevents a CVA which is weighted to screw over the over the non football related creditors in preference to football related ones. As far as I can see the FL has placed itself in direct oposition to Insolvency law resulting in significant the confusion.

Yes. Clear conflict of interest and lack of independence.

Can't beat cheesecake!:smt041

The culturally ingrained abuse in fact

Yes. The key one being that an administrator can continue to trade whilst he seeks a buyer. A liquidator can not trade the business and so just shuts the doors and sells what he can.

Right outcome, wrong reasons. Objective 1 is to preserve the COMPANY as a going concern. SLH Plc is insolvent and has no prospect of returning to profitable trading in its current form. Technically referred to as F***ED. Objective 2 is to acheive a better return for creditors. This is where we are at the moment. Luckily (for us anyway) Being able to sell the football club as a going concern is by far the most likely route to maximise the return to creditors.

If that is true then he should be facing disciplinary proceedings and lose his IP licence.

Don't think "fan-friendly" and "professional" are mutually exclusive but perhaps "self publicising" and "professional" are. Wile was clearly on an ego trip at the time of those posts and looking to milk it for all it was worth.

TBF they shouldn't even have to queue.

Wasn't expecting that. Fair enough. :cool:

8 )a low proportion of the population with a university education?

Not that far off the mark IMO.

Completely agree. The differene between acheiving a going concern sale and a "break up" is also likely to be huge, making it in EVERYBODY'S best interest to acheive a sale.

The players aren't valued under intangible assets at saints. Player registrations are. Do you honestly beleive that these can continue to be valid in the event that they are not being paid or the club ceases to trade? As for your other points: 1) No they aren't. My words were "until the club goes into administration" i.e. a future event. Either way, in the scenario that you envisage the Club (SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED) would need to be placed into either Administration or Liquidation. (Unless of course you are suggesting that it continue to be run as a going concern whilst this sale of the centuary is conducted? 2) Except that we wouldn't be able to get £1m for him. Other clubs, knowing the situation would only make derisory offers and DMG himself would be an idiot not to refuse to sign for anyone else until he was allowed to move on a free thereby being able to negotiate a better contract. The chances of getting a proper fee for a player would hinge on a) a club being stupid enough to offer a sizable fee AND b) the player being badly advised enough to not hold out for a free transfer. This is highly unlikely. On this basis nobody is going to fund the salaries on the off chance that this comes off. I do know what I'm talking about as I understand how these decisions are made and make them regularly myself. You on the otherhand refuse to accept (yet again) that anybody can validly question anything you post rather than revearing it as nailed on fact.

Becuase? Are you saying players can do what they want, show up when they want as long as they play on a Saturday?