Clapham Saint

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?

Exactly. Even if the players aren't employees (which I still beleive that they legally are) Barclays Aviva will not continue to fund £500k a month in the hope of the posibility of selling players at a profit. Especially as clubs can just wait for them to give up. As of course could players who would then be able to negotiate better contracts with their new clubs not having to pay a transfer fee. Which ever way you try to analyse it this the idea that players can be sold off in a break up scenario doesn't work.

No it isn't. "The Artist Formally Known as Prince" will have been engaged to produce x no. of albums within x years. (plus some promotional obligations, extras for concert gates etc). He can then go and write/compose/whatever under his own direction. A footballer is engaged to turn up to work on set days, take direct instruction in a formal manner from other employees (i.e. coaches, manager) etc etc.

Until either: The club goes into administration and as EMPLOYEES they are released or (the fictional scenario of) SFC Limited fail to pay the contracted payments and they walk away due to breach on contract.

One other thought.... A creditor can appeal against a CVA which has been approved on the basis that it is "manifestly unfair". HMRC might be able to claim this depending on the circumstances... My understanding (although I have been wrong about F.A. rules in the past) is that there is an additional points deduction should administration not be exited via a CVA. Usually clubs are unable to exit via a CVA becuase HMRC block them. If SLH does not owe any money to HMRC then they will not be able to block and SLH will be able to exit Administration via a CVA thereby avoiding the points deduction regardless of the FA considering the holding co and company to be linked.

And why do you always feel the need to be so combative in your choice of language? Asside from the fact that the vast majority of the posts above seem to be in agreement with me and disagreement with you, it is possible to just discuss things sometimes you know.:heart: