Clapham Saint

Altough techically SLH was put into Administration by the directors Lowe would not have been given any choice in the matter. Lowe did not chose the Administration, he did not plan it, it is not some part of an elaborate scheme. The only way he is going to be back is if he can find the funds to out bid any other consortium. I very much doubt that he will be able to do so. If another consortium buys the club he will have no shares, no influence, no leaverage and no ability to force himself back into the fore. Stop scaremongering.

You've gone and got my hopes up now. Damn!

Sigh... I don't think you'll find a post from me stating the legal position with regard to the 10 points one way or the other. You'll find plenty discussing possibilities though. You are so keen for an argument that as soon as you see a post that doesn’t hold your opinion in awe you start foaming at the mouth. "I'm still laughing about your suggestion that Barclays may fund it..." As I've said on all the my posts above Barclays MAY could well fund it if the arguments are sufficient and the cost/benefit adds up. I think I even bolded the MAY in the previous posts. Barclays are funding both legal action and short term trading losses on a number of cases with which I am currently dealing for exactly the reasons outlined above. Informed posters will make their own judgements. Others with less experience of these situations rely on others for information to make theirs. You rant and rave happily informing everybody what will definitely happen, black and white, because you are clearly all seeing and all knowing. The situation isn't like that and you know it. You clearly consider yourself to have a wealth of knowledge in the insolvency arena. Given that you don't work in the industry as an accountant or solicitor where did you gain this all encompassing experience?

w***er. False promises and lies.

Good post. I'll feel a lot more comfortable discussing who is to blame once the short term future is secured.:smt086

You get very touchy when people don't simply accept everything you say as gospel don't you. I've not the one spouting off on here demanding that everybody agree with me. What I have said is that I don't think that the argument is as clear cut as your posts imply it to be. You are one of number of posters who are prepared to offer different views to the majority which I think is to your creidit. In my opinion though (I'm sure you won't hesitate to disagree with me) you spoil your valid points by refusing to listen to other opinions and responding with such vitriol rather than with an explanation of your opinions. Oh well.

1) I never said that they definately would 2) They frequently do in other cases. The judgement is based upon cost, chances of success and the financial impact of success of failure. Cost (in perspective of the figures in which we are dealing with here) is probably manageable I would guess. Chances of success... Who knows, I would imagine unlikely but then again I haven't either read the rules myself in any detail and so am probably not that qualified to give an opinion. Impact... None of us know this. This will have been discussed at the negotiations that the administrator has been having with interested parties. Again, only a guess but I would have thought it will make a BIG difference. As RR said above, none of us can make a definative statement one way or the other as we simply don't have enough information. I never said that they would one way or the other, I simply corrected your statement that the Administrator definately wouldn't appeal as I don't beleive it to be that clear cut.

I currently work for an administrator and agree completely with RR.

Not entirely true. If and administrator had an open and shut case he would incur the legal costs as it would likely realise greater returns for creditors. Unfortunately I don;t beleive that we have an open and shut case. What commonly happens in these situations is that the Administrator will go to the major creditors (i.e. Aviva and Barlcays) and ask them to fund the legal action. Baclays MAY be prepred to fund the costs of an appeal, however this will depend upon the advice that they are being given with regard to the cost and likely % chance of success. They will also have a feel for how much less they are now likely to get (if anything) for the club if the penaty remains, which will also factor into the decision.

What a load of bull. Icelandic banking is only an issue if WHU break their banking covenants or need to borrow more money to continue trading. Not unlike...

Exactly.

I think you'll find that SLH has more than a football club. It also owns a company which operates a stadium.

Agreed, however why the fuss over us and not with them? Or have I been blissfully ignorant of the independent investigation being made into their finances?

Not seen this mentioned before, however from this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8007763.stm The BBC discuss Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson (West Ham's owner) being in financial difficulty. He bought the club via his personal holding company i.e. He owns a Company which owns the shares in West Ham. Seem familiar? I will admit that I haven't checked the exact ownership structure of West Ham, however: "Icelandic bank Straumur provided much of the money in loans for Mr Gudmundsson's £85m purchase of West Ham United in November 2006. Since then Mr Gudmundsson's holding company Hansa - in effect West Ham's United's holding company - has hit financial difficulties and gone into administration." Can somebody on here point out some differences between Premier League Rules and Football League rules or is this a case of one rule for one and another Rule for another?

I agree. I doubt he would be vindictive. More than anything else I expect he would see it as beneath him as muc as anything else. Also not the smartest thing for him to be mouthing off about when Chairman of a listed company...

If that is actually what he said I'm afraid he has no idea what he is talking about.

+1 Most posters on here don't do this but the attitude taken by some of "£Xm is nothing to them, they can afford it" really annoys me.

I agree. See my edit. If it's not too much of a conradiction I'm amazed but not overly surprised.

IF that is true then he is a total t w a t. IF that is true then hanging on until after the deadline was (in my view) seriously negligent. Edit: Just a quick thought but the red "IF"s aren't intended to call you into question duncan. I'm just amazed that he could have been talking like that whilst director of a plc and not taking is into admin before the deadline.

Except that at some point you have to draw the line. Barclays could have just given us a £20m overdraft and told Lowe to spend it on a promotion push however the decision is at what point does being supportive change to throwing money away. This will always be subjective and Lowe's oppinion will differ from Barclays. Obviously.

But they do decide where they draw the line. There are thousands of companies operating in breach of their agreed overdraft facilities every day. The day that we went into admin wasn't the day that we went over the limit. In my experience, Barclays are generally supportive when businesses find themselves in difficulty however the main stumbling blocks occur when they lose confidence either in the business model or more imporantly in Management. Like 99% on here I have no knowledge of the actual discussions which have no doubt been going on regularly for months (possibly years) however, although a director shouldn't just roll over my GUESS is that Lowe's brinkmanship led to a loss of confidence in the ability for the overdraft to be reduced overtime whilst he remained in charge.

+1 .

FWIW I've seen this scenario happen many times before. Normally with arrogant Directors who consider themselves to be in charge of the situation and in a position to demand things from the Bank. The point when the fact that they are not the ones calling the shots dawns on them can be quite spectacular. Although I'm sure all "sides" could probably point to things that the other did which caused problems the overriding problem is likely to have been Lowe being convinced that he could control the bank. This very rarely works. Arrogant tw*t. That said it would have been helpful if Barclays had set their deadlines/forced his hand a few days earlier...

My thoughts exactly. Still worried it may not happen though.

Guys...! :smt119:(