Clapham Saint

Much as I like the idea of the passion they would bring I would hate for their legend staus to be tarnished should/when things start to go wrong (as they do for most managers eventually...)

Exactly! :smt041:smt041:smt041

Except that... If there were the hypothetical stituation where by a wealth Individual buys a club and borrows a load of money personally, with which he buys a stadium for his team to play in and uses income from the club to help him make the loan repayments. If that individual then went Bankrupt and so had to sell the club would there be a clamour for the F.A. to deduct points from the team? I suspect not. It could be argued that we are in the same situation, the bankrupt owner just happens to be a company. Not saying that the F.A. will definately see it that way but...

I didn't go becuase I stopped enjoying it. (Which has been the worst thing about the last few years at Saints for me) I will be there on Saturday. This is important.

Unfortunately not. The Administrator will look into the conduct of directors and make a report (I think to the secretary of state but I may be wrong on that one) under the Company Director's Disqualification Act 1986. IF he is found to have committed an offence then he could be disqualified, see here: http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/guidanceleafletspdf/cddadd.pdf But in realisty I suspect that this won't happen. Although a t0sser I don't think that anything he has done could be proved to have been illegal. He will lose his shares and his job (one of them anyway) but that's about it.

Not something that are able to have any influence on. Something that we can actively do is turn up in force on Saturday. Or of course we could all sit at home and complain that nobody has felt confident enough in the viability of the club to buy it.

](*,) I knew somebody would post something like this. Yes, an investor will put together a business plan and will make estimates of future attendendances as well as future TV deals etc etc etc but any investor who acts like you would like them to and just "knows" that attendances and revenues will be a certain level is an idiot and will lose a lot of money when they apply the same level of financial planning to all of their deals. Turning out in force will: 1) help to confirm in their minds that attendances will be as they hope. 2) add to the "feel good factor" which come with the prospect of making a big deal. More importantly the luxury of being able to tell anybody to sod off has long long gone.

Tonight is going to include a difficult conversation with the Mrs as we are supposed to be going to a birthday party on Saturday.....

... and went to the game on Saturday still undecided, how would you react to a half empty stadium? ....would you feel more inclined to invest if the fans showed up in force selling the game out and creating an electric atmosphere? We need to show potential investors that this club has a loyal fan base and has the potential for a bright future. The best way to do this is to sell out this weekend. For all the stay aways, what ever your reasons, NOW IS THE TIME TO RETURN!! As of yesterday I wasn't planning on going this weekend but after the events of today I need to change my plans... COYR!!!!!!!!!!!

Possibly. It depends if that's the route that the Directors take. I would be suprised if the planning for this hasn't been going on for a long time (months rather than weeks). What the directors chose to do will depend on the legal advise they have taken, the progress which has been made with potential purchasers, the stance of the Banks, the stance of HMRC.... (this list could go on for ages). I suspect that the players probably would be paid. If protection is sought via a notice of intention to appoint the Bank could freeze the account and not let any payments be made. More likely is that the Bank have been part of discussions from the begining and will allow salaries to go through in order to maintain the value of the club to a potential purchaser. Wages are also normally paid at the end of the month i.e. 1 day ago. I would be surprised if the timing is coincidence.

Very very almost. There are essentially 5 insolvency procedures relevant to corporate entities. All are slightly different. The below is a very very basic summary but in broad order of termiality (from least to most severe): 1) CVA - effecitively coming to a deal with the creditors 2) LPA Receivership - Usually over a single asset which the receiver (estate agent) will sell for the best price he can on behalf of the bank 3) Administrative Receivership - Only relevant if the banks charge is pre-enterprise act and so I don;t think will apply. 4) Aministration - An administrator takes over the running of the company and can continue trading to get the best realisations he can 5) Liquidation - A liquidator closes the doors. Shuts everything down and flogs it off.

Although there are a number of possible scenarios one possibility for what will happen is: In order to gain some protection from creditors the Directors can file a "notice of intention to appoint administrators" Filing this document at court doesn't place the Company into administration but it does give the Company protection from any action being taken by creditors (via a moratorium on the Company's debts) The protection lasts 10 working days (so 2 weeks). Edit: Just realised that I have slightly misread what you were asking. All the same the above is a possiblility if the directors want more time to negotiate with potential investors.

I hate to be picky by Admin and liquidation are two very different procedures. If SLH is in Liquidation then we are truely F*CKED. Administration just potentially f*cked.

My personal loathing is actually highest for this c u n t. :smt062 Surprised myself as I'm not a Lowe fan.

Cynical :smt110

Pre-packs are very easy to abuse if the IP/directors are of low integrity. Sometimes though they really are the best option for creditors. One additional problem is that even when they are the best option the fact that most creditors don't know about it until the deal has already been done means that they can APPEAR to be dodgy even when they aren't. There is quite an interesting Q and A on them here: http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/nick-oreilly-r3/ And before anybody asks, no I'm not the guy being interviewed. That aside though if a prepack were to go ahead at Sains we would get the 10 point deduction. No question.

You're right, unfortunately there are plenty out there. However it is a lot easier to shaft creditors when they are a collection of small companies. Barclays and Aviva have the resources and a lot of good IPs on their pannels to fight back in that scenario. They really aren't push overs.

This true, however the Companies doing this have to either allow others to bid for the profitable elements (and so may miss out) or demonstrate that the value of the business will decline significantly if the profitable elements are not sold back to them immeadiatly. Either that or have a um.... less scrupulous... Insolvency Practitiner help them out.

The shares of Southampton FC Limited are an asset of SLH and so could be sold. As said earlier (I can't remember if it was this thread or another one) they would have to be sold for "Fair Value" or the Directors might might themselves personably liable (under s238 of the Insolvency act this would be a "Misfeasence"). Secondly the shares of Southampton Football Club Limited are almost certainly covered by Barclays debenture and so anybody selling them (i.e. the Directors at the moment or an Administrator/Liquidator/CVA Supervisor is one is appointed in the future) will require Barclays permission in order to sell them. If Barclays withold permission "unreasonably" then you could apply to court for permission to sell. Unfortunately there is no statutory definition on either "Fair Value" or "unreasonably". :smt017 HTH (Edit for spelling)

How does he smell?

I seem to remeber that that was the case too. Wasn't there also an accusation that he had inflated the amount that the books said he was owed to give himself more voting power? (Also no research just what I vaguely recall)

Re: the two parts which you pu in bold. 1) The Football League will also need to approve the sale I'm afraid that I know very litle about the league rules and there are posters on here far more enlightened than I am. 2) The sale of the club is subject to approval by its creditors. This is true in the case of a CVA under which the Company will put together proposals as to how much and when they propose to be able to pay creditors, the creditors then vote (which the number of votes depending on how much you are owed) on whether to accept them. The posts on this thread suggest that a sale outside of a formal insolvency process and then an administration order. An administration is a different procedure to a CVA and although creditors will get to vote on some things (such as who is appoined as administrator) they don't get to veto a sale of the Company's assets. As I said earlier if you have given fixed charge security to a lender by law the directors (and in an insolvency process the Administrator/Liquidator/CVA Supervisor) require the permission of the charge holder in order to sell the asset. If consent is "unreasonably witheld" you can apply to court for permission to sell the asset. On a more general note.... although everybody gets understandibly quite worked up and excited trying to peice together what is going on (if anything) it is all just speculation as none of us has access to all of the facts. Most importantly our true financial position, who, if anybody has expressed any interest in making an offer or what the Bank's view is. Chances of us working it out on here are close to zero.:smt017

Selling assets subject to a fixed charge requires the chargeholder's permission. In our case Barclays and Aviva. If the stadium is not being sold then Aviva's permission might not be neeeded it will depend upon the exact nature of the debture.

Possibly. I could be argued either way but the key figure is the amount of money that a purchaser is willing to offer and able to pay. No more no less.

See my answer re the share value above. 2 other points to include though are that: 1) I'm not sure which Company (i.e. SLH or Southampton Footbal Club Limited) owns the stadium but this wouldn't necessarily be included in the sale. 2) It could also be agrued that the value of "the club" (i.e. the buiness which is owned by "Southampton Football Club Limited" which is in turn owned by "SLH") should be higher than the share price as the share price includes the debts of the company as well as the assets. If an investor bough the club they wouldn't necessarily take on the debts as well. Somebody who knows what the rough debt is can add it up but I doubt that anybody would really argue that the club was worth the current share price (£3m by your figures) plus the club's debts?