Clapham Saint

To be honest I think we're probably both half right. Aviva will have a fixed charge over the stadium. Co's Hse will show any charges held by Barclays. If Aviva were smart when they took out their security then they would have taken a floating charge over other assets. This could rank before Barclays leaving Barclays with a debenture (and so technically secured) which is effectively worthless. Without looking at the security documents we're not going to know for sure.

Ah, in hindsight your probably right there. I would still be amazed if Barclays were prepared to put out £6m completely unsecured though. I suspect that they may just be subordinated and so will be secured albeit not very well. Anybody here have access to companies house? I can only log on from the office.

This is exactly what ewill happen. Mr Fry will sell all of the assets. The liabilities (i.e. mortgage and overdraft etc) will remain. This will leave a shell company which has cash but still owes more money than it has cash available. The cash available will be shared out between the creditors. This will leave a company with no money or assets which will then be dissolved.

No. Aviva's debt is secured on the stadium, but SLH still owns it. In the same way that you owe the bank the £2m (maybe) that you needed to buy your house doesn't mean that the bank own your house. The difference is that in the case of a person the Bank can foreclose and seek to reposess, when you are dealing with a corporate entity they can appoint administrators instead. The ace that Aviva do have is that Mr Fry requires their consent before he can complete a sale, however they are not allowed to withold consent "unreasonably". (Must have written the above on about 20 threads, I really should learn to cut and paste):roll:

Can I point out that everybody has overlooked the fact that Chrage out rates are not the same as salaries. Can't beleive you all missed that. Must I point out everything?

Flat fees are a lot more common with CVAs as the work required (and time) is a lot easier to predict. In and administration it will be time costs.

Agree completely with this. Don't forget that a consortium doesn't have to buy absolutely everything. There is no reason why consortium 1 couldn't buy the club, consortium 2 the stadium (leasing or renting it to the club) and a.n. other developer buy Jackson's farm.

Aviva don't have the right to prevent anybody from taking any debenture. Barclays will definately definately definately have a debenture over all assets of the comapny. The ranking of the debentures (in the absence of any signed agreement to the contrary) will be the order in whcih they were created. It is likely (although I haven't specifically checked) that: For the mortgage, Aviva have a fixed charge debenture over the stadium. They may or may not have a charge over other assets, I don't know. For the overdraft, Barclays will have a fixed and floating debenture over all assets of the Company as well as there being cross guarantees. Aviva will definately rank first for proceeds from the stadium. As for who ranks first for proceeds from other assets, this will depend upon the order in which the charges were created. If the Barclays Support Manager who authorised the overdraft did so without a debenture in place he would not just been fired he would have been thrown out of the top floor of 1CP.

Looks about right to me. Don't forget though that your "salaries" are based on all staff being charegable to clients 100% of the time. In reality this won't be the case. Especially in the case of a filing clerk. You also haven't taken account of rent, insurance, IT, and other overheads. There are also a lot of staff (HR) who need to be paid but are never charged to clients. The fees above have to cover those cost as well.

Exactly.

Accountant. :smt066

Ha no. However happy to admit that I can't spell for sh1te so it's lucky I earn my salary from numbers rather than words.:cool:

If Cedar press are owed money then they are almost definately owed money by SFC Limited. SFC Limited is not in administration. If somebody buys the shares of SFC Limited it makes no difference to the amount that is owed to Cedar Press or the way in which it should be repaid in the normal course of business buy SFC Limited.

If LLS come up with the highest bid then he comes up with the highest bid. There isn't much anyone can do about it. Although the Banks have to concent they are not the ones in charge. The Banks are not allowed to "unreasonably withold concent" to a sale. If the one consortium offers enough to allow amounts to be paid to the creditors further down the food chain, whilst others didn't then Mr Fry would have a responsibility to seek to sell to that party. If the Bank's don't like it they can only withhold concent with good reason. Sadly there is no definition of what constitutes "unreasonable".

It is almost certainly a fixed and floating "all assets" debenture. This means that all assets that are fixed (i.e. the stadium, the shares of SFC Limited and all other assets that are "bolted down" will require concent before sales can be completed. Other assets such as stock will be covered by the "floating" element of the charge and so don't require the concent. Mr Fry will do all of the negotiating (as he is the one in control) but he will in all probability keep the banks in the loop throughout the process. If the Bank's have a big issue with anything they will make it known during the negotiations.

Except that as chargeholders Barclays and Aviva will need to concent to the sale of the assets covered by their debentures. They hold significantly more influence than Cedar Press or the milkman. Unfortunately.

Duncan, Your assessment is pretty much correct. As debenture holders Barclays/Aviva's consent will be required for the sale of the fixed charge assets. It is possible that they could advise Mr. Fry to accept the best bid for the "Club" rather than just the most money but I doubt it very much. However, any investor looking to buy in cheap an asset stip a football club in the current environment is taking a big risk and could lose a lot of money. I hope (HOPE) that there shouldn't be too many of these amoungst the serious bidders. :smt102

That pdf looks fairly good. If you let me know what you wanted clarification on I'll see if I can dig up something suitable.

I'm afraid, as with most things insolvency, it depends... I think that we can safely say though that interest on either bank, or other creditor balances is going to be irelevant. Absolutely nobody (creditor wise) is going to be paid in full on the amounts before interest let alone after and so shareholders become irrelevant.

19C, you imply that Aviva and Barclays are likely to demand the majority of their debt is repayed. They have to all intents and puposes already lost their money and I'm sure have fully provided against it. I acknowledge that if breaking everything up and selling it peicemeal will realise the most money then this is what is likely to happen however I doubt that this will be the case. (copied from a post on another thread): In the doomsday scenario where we don't get a sale and SFC ceases to be: 1) Aviva will take a HUGE write off on the stadium. Due to the poor, housing/commercial property market and the proximity of the gas works the stadium is of virtually no value to anybody else and would be sold for penuts. 2) The training ground/jackson's farm will be sold off to the highest bidder. Most likely a developer. Again I wouldn't have thought that the realisations would be very impressive. 3) I'm not sure about the status of the players contracts/registrations. If the club is liquidated in theory these would be sold off. However as we are talking about people rather than (say) bits of furniture I'm not sure now this would work out. The players might all just be released on frees when their wages weren't paid. Again this would mean very little money making its way back to either Aviva or Barclays. Given that the above, any offer that provides a better return would be taken (after the usual haggling obviously). I'd like to think that would happen.

+1.

The more enquiries then better. As a general rule you can get a feel fairly early on as to whether an interested party is a serious option or not. This will be from anything from knowing about their background to the level of professional advise that they have taken so far (i.e. somebody that shows up having clearly made a serious start on business plans and likely legal issues stands out above the bloke that turns up on his own clearly not having a clue what he is doing). The other key thing that sorts the wheat from the chaff (as it were) is asking for proof of funds. This could be anything from a letter from a bank/High net worth individual stating that they have agreed in principal to fund the deal to a bank statement showing funds in an account to whatever. The administrator won't waste much time dealing with people who don't appear to have the means to follow through on any deal that is agreed, it just wastes time (and money) that could be spent dealing with the more serious bidders. As to whether we'll manage to get a deal... I would hope so. At the end of the day, in the doomsday scenario where we don't get a sale and SFC ceases to be: 1) Aviva will take a HUGE write off on the stadium. Due to the poor, housing/commercial property market and the proximity of the gas works the stadium is of virtually no value to anybody else and would be sold for penuts. 2) The training ground/jackson's farm will be sold off to the highest bidder. Most likely a developer. Again I wouldn't have thought that the realisations would be very impressive. 3) I'm not sure about the status of the players contracts/registrations. If the club is liquidated in theory these would be sold off. However as we are talking about people rather than (say) bits of furniture I'm not sure now this would work out. The players might all just be released on frees when their wages weren't paid. Again this would mean very little money making its way back to either Aviva or Barclays. Given that the above, any offer that provides a better return would be taken (after the usual haggling obviously). I'd like to think that would happen. If I had to put money on it I would go with us finding a buyer. Whether or not that buyer is able to secure the funds to invest in a new team and manager or not though is harder to guess. Sadly we're going to have to wait and see. Edit for moronic spelling

Pretty much spot on. Aviva will get the proceeds from any sale of the stadium. Which of Barclays and Aviva get the bulk of the proceeds from the sale of the shares of Southampton Football Club Limited will depend on the ranking and nature of their debentures. Employees claims are preferential for: 1) All accrued but untaken holiday (which is then paid) 2) arrears of wages in the last four months, but this is capped at £800 per employee. Employees are then unsecured creditors for everything else including things like: 1) Any further arrears of wages, 2) Redundnacy pay 3) Pay in lieu of notice. HTH [EDIT: the one other thing is that technially the administrator is working for ALL creditors rather than just the secureds. However in the real world, there is unlikely to be much to distribute to the unsecured creditors]

+1 People rabidly trying to lay all the blame on one hate figure's shoulders is misguided IMO. All have a share of the blame. Others will differ but for me Crouch hasn't been as bad as Lowe or Wilde. Which of Lowe or Wilde I dispise more fluctuates from week to week. Currently Wilde.

LOL! They were protecting themselves. No solicitor or IP that they were being advised by would have let them sell season tickets given the uncertainty surrounding teh club. By selling season tickets when they knew that there was a good chance of not being able to honour them exposes them to: 1) Wrongful trading 2) Paying a preference (i.e. repaying the Bank at the expense of other creditors) under (if memory serves) section 239 of the insolvency act. This could have resulted in the directors becoming PERSONALLY liable for repaying the season ticket holders. Do you honestly beleive that the boardroom discussion was: Wilde: "So shall we roll out the early bird season tickets, that will help the cash flow as we're only £110k short". Rupes: "Golly gosh no old bean! Although we are just £110k short of paying the bank what they have asked for it could be frightfully unfair on those poor supporters, I'd hate for them to lose out after the fantastic loyalty they've shown over the years." Although I don't think Lowe should be taking 100% of the blame (as some sem to) his the motivation for not collecting season ticket money was not to protect fans interests.