Clapham Saint

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:(

Did he ever actually say that? Not wanting to call you into question, just curious.

I don't think that it is ok to leacture any fans on the level of financial support that they give. Those that give any should be rightly applauded. Those that do not chose to put in their money make their own decision based on their own circumstances and finances. Just becuase somebody has more money than you or I doesn't mean that he is obligated to spend it on what you or I would like him to.

I can't... Clearly blind or still not getting it. :smt086

Very VERY good question. I will give this some thought...

Me too... Am I being thick?

Spot on. Overdrafts are usually only unsecured in smaller companies.

Yes of course. It is just like trying to sell anything. When trying to sell your house you ideally want to get a bidding war going. If at the end of the bidding war the higher offer falls through you go back to the next highest bid and try to conclude the deal with them instead. Alternatively if you have several interested parties some sellers prefer to give a deadline by when they want to have received sealed bids. (I doubt thiis is the case with saints or the deadline would probably have been announched).

Lol!! That would be so cool.:cool:

I know this isn't the answer that you are looking for but it could be anything. I have seen deals done in just a couple of days and others that have taken over 9 months. I suspect that we should at least have had some indicative offers if not full bids by now, however the administrator has a duty to get the highest amount possible. With a reported 30+ bidders there is a LOT of haggling and horse trading to get done before he can finalise a deal.

If we fail to pay wages and the club ceases to exist Barclays will get nothing and the administrator will probably face a shortfall on his fees. It is heavily in both their interests for us to make it to the end of the season and a sale. However... if there is no realistic prospect of a sale Barclays would be foolish to throw good money after bad funding us to the end of teh season. As the end of the season gets closer the administrator becomes more desperate and the morelikely that a consolrtium will be able to get away with a lower bid. A case of brinksmanship on all sides. And brown trousers time for those of us who are not ITK. (It still amazes me how many people claim to have the inside track)

With difficulty. If there are bids for the club then they may now be reduced. However more importantly if the administrator is doing deals like this then I would take that to mean that he doesn't expect to make a sale (of the club) before the end of the month (when wages are due and the money is needed).

Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) - The company basically comes to a compromise deal with creditors Creditors Volunary Liquidation (CVL) - Close down and break up of an insolvent company Members Voluntary Liquidation (MVL) - Close down and break up of a solvent company (i.e. all the creditors will be paid in full)

From reading the posts throughout this and several other threads I think that many people are making 2 key mistakes in their assessments when they post asserting what will happen in certain different scenarios. First off. The values of the assets stated in the accounts are currently meaningless. They are based upon accounting conventions as a manner of recording transactions, they are not formal valuations. (The liabilities however are as stated, or at least they were at that point in time). Secondly you need to separate the companies which make up the Group operated by SLH Plc. SLH Plc is a separate entity to the football club and can be imagined as the "person" that owns the club. The analogy below is slightly simplified and the more technical posters can almost certainly pick holes in the fact that I have ignored cross guarantees and other potential hurdles however I hope that it helps the majority in visualising what is going on. Imagine a sheik coming over and buying a football club. If that sheik then buys a football stadium he will allow his football club to play games at that stadium (obviously) but they stadium and the club are still 2 separate assets which he could sell individually if he so chooses. Now in order to buy the stadium the Sheik had to borrow £30M from a Bank. He borrows the money personally and it is his name on the mortgage application not the club's. He also takes out a personal loan of £6M in order to pump the money into the club and try to get it promoted. If his oil well dries up and the promotion bid fails he can no longer make the monthly mortgage repayments. He goes bankrupt he will sell the club and the stadium and use the money to try to pay back the bank. If he can only sell the stadium for £5m and the club for £5m he pays back £10m to the Bank but this still leaves him owing £26m which he has no way of paying back. The club has been sold and carry's on its merry way under new ownership. The money that the Sheik borrowed isn't any of the Club's concern. He borrowed the money and it is his problem. He will be bankrupt and the Bank will lose £26m. The situation at saints is the same except that SLH Plc is the Sheik and it owns two entirely separate assets which it has borrowed money to help it finance. The shares in a Company call Southampton Football Club Limited The shares in a Company called Saint Mary's Stadium Limited The administrator will seek to sell the shares in these companies for whatever he can get. The debt will remain in SLH Plc. It is not Southampton Football Club's issue. I cannot see a scenario whereby the administrator will raise more money by allowing the club to cease to exist. If the club is not sold I expect that the players will be free to join other clubs. I haven't checked any Football league rules but I would not expect them to be anything other than free agents. If this happens then the Administrator will get nothing. Selling the club for just a pound would be better (although I expect it to be more than this if a sale is agreed). The doomsday scenario as far as I am concerned occurs at the end of the month. If the club has been sold by then, all well and good. If the club hasn't been sold by then does it have enough cash to pay the players’ salaries? Previously SLH Plc would have let the club the money (after borrowing it from Barclays). If it does, all well and good. If it doesn't..... We have a problem.

The "cost" in the accounts is purely for accounting purposes. It conveys no obligation upon any purchaser to pay that amount. A purchaser will then pay whatever they want for him. For example, we sold Kevin Davies to Blackburn for £7.5 million (all those years ago). For the sake of argument lets say he had a 5 year contract. He was there for a year so as far as the accounts were concerned Blackburn would have been including him at £6m ( 4/5 of £7.5m). We bought him back for circa £4m (I think). The £6m on Blackburns books was irrelevant, we paid what we thought he was worth. Equally when we first bought him for Chesterfield (?) for £750k and had him for 2 years? He would have been in our accounts at a value of £450k (3/5 of £750k) but we sold him for £7.5 million. Again the £450k is irrelevant and a result of how accounting stadards dictate that the accounts should show rather than the true "value" Does that answer the question or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Not quite. CREDITORS Voluntary Liquidation is a different process and something far worse than Administration. If the Administrator fails to sell the Club it will most likely be placed into CVL and closed down.

This may be too pratronising and if so I appologise however in basic terms palyers will first be recognised in the acconts at "cost". "Cost" will include the transfer fee paid (and those payable) as well as fees paid to lawyers/agents etc in order to make the signing. A proportion of the cost is then written off as an expense each year such that at the end of the players contract he is worth £0. The value of the palayer at any 1 point in time in the accounts is refered to as the "Net book value" i.e the "cost" less the amount which has been counted as an expense so far. Players such as Surman never cost the club a fee and so as far as the accounts are concerned the "cost" is zero.

The direcotrs are required to give notice to the Bank before they can appoint administrators. What commonly happens in practice is that the Bank will tell the directors who they want the directors to appoint, the directors then have little choice but to do so. Most banks prefer not to make the actual appointment themselves if they can avoid it.

Good point and in my view writing that whilst claiming that the two companies are separate is not the brightest thing that an Insolvency Practitioner has ever done. Unless of course his legal advise was that it was ok...

I think you missed the point of my post. I agree with you that the Bank will have been the driving force behind the appoiintment of the Administrators however TECHNICALLY it was the directors who appoiinted them (hence the acknowledgement that I was being pedantic). Also see Trousers post above.

Again, I don't know this as fact, however... I suspect that Barclays WERE happy with their position becuase the bulk of the Compnay's security was in the form of land/property which until not that long ago was worth a considerable sum and was steadily going up in value. This is no longer the case. These assets are now worth considerably less and are continuing to drop resulting in Barclays losing comfort and seeking to lower their exposure.