benjii

Ahh... very touching. How thoughtful.

I wish we would start with 2 upfront (with Stern being one of them). This system is not working without Holmes and a genuine right winger.

There's no point throwing in the towel. As long as there's a chance that we can finish 4th bottom then we must keep going and give it our all. Administration will almost certiainly lead to relegation and won't necessarily get rid of those c ***s.

Let's play with 2 up front on Saturday... How about that for a revolutionary new set-up?

Yes indeed! Once a typo, twice... funny! I like the way he's adopted Scooby's flat-cap signifier too.

Bart in being shi* shocker.

Banana!

Prob Kyle Davis I guess?

Thomson, Hatch...... plus one!

According to Saints TV radio this is the team: ----------------------BB-------------------- Cork------Perry--------Svensson---------Mills ---------------------Wotton---------------- James-----------------------------Surman--- -------------BWP-----------Lallana--------- --------------------McGoal-----------------

According to a Derby forum I laughed at after the match, he's on £26k a week!

Obvioulsy the demise of Pompey would be very entertaining! [-o I just can't see any effect of "big" clubs facing financial hardship other than increasingly desperate, anti-competitive and financially non-distributative measures being put in place.

Why? I have not the slightest idea what a "cerebal wit" is or where I can find one for these people. Thank you for submitting a blustering, shrill, pugnacious, bloated trencherman of a post though. As always, its entertainment value far outweighed any substantive misgivings the reader may have had. Keep it up, Bruce Inson.

Whilst it is plausible that some Prem teams could face severe financial difficulties, the notion that this is good news for Saints is pure guff IMO.

Lol - £5m! You're having a laugh. We'd get £2m max.

:lol: Funniest post on here for fecking ages! :prayer: PMSL.

Oh that old chestnut I'm thinking of getting an 18year old Swedish au pair one day..... y'know, to help the kids.

I have no ITK knowledge of any of our financial agreements (and if I did I wouldn't tell anyone anyway!) but it would be 99.99999999% likely that NU will have a fixed legal charge (in common parlance a "mortgage") over the stadium. They are 99.9999% likely to have other sorts of security in place too. If we went into administration they would be entitled to the money from the sale of the stadium (presumably all of it unless some looney wants to pay £25m + for it!). As a secured creditor they would also be first in the queue (behind the administrator's costs) of creditors so they would get the lion's share of everything else as well. The overdraft with Barclays may or may not be secured (probably is). If it is secured then the two banks have probably entered into a separate deed regulating their security position. Apart from a small portion ringfenced for unsecured creditors (capped at £600k I think), the two banks would probably take everything (which probably still isn't that much!). So yes, the issue of who "owns" the stadium is in some respects a moot point. Phew.... Sorry to go off on one. It's been a while since we had a good juicy takeover thread with City Code, share wheeling and dealing, due diligence etc... (I think the Asturius Sports one has died a slow and painful death!) - a nice meaty administration thread just isn't quite as exciting!

Lol - no, a mate of a steward told me that

No, we (one of the group companies anyway) do own it. Our debts will be secured against it (as well as just about everything else owned by the group). Anyway, this is a side issue really... The main point I was trying to make was that the suggestion that the PLC will be immune from administration and that some sort of ingenious hiving-up of assets will protect the football team is implausible, subject to challenge and, in some circumstances, potentially illegal. The only way we could get away with such a plan is if our secured creditors have seriously deficient security in place. Seeing as our two -(assuming our overdraft is secured; in any case NU will have all encompassing security) - main creditors are large financial insitutions this seems particularly unlikely.

I will say again: The stadium is an asset. The debt is a debt. The debt is secured against assets. It's quite simple - sorry if this sounds facetious.

We could do with Euell back as well IMO. The game on Saturday was crying out for more physical dynamism in the middle to drive us forward (as well as a second striker!).

Ps - Any significant debt held by any group company is bound to be guaranteed by the parent company.

The stadium is an asset. The debt is a debt. Divesting a company of assets for an undervalue, during a "relevant period" prior to the onset of insolvency of a company, can be overturned on application to the court by an administrator. Of course if someone is willing to pay a fair price for the asset it isn't a problem, although only some sort of benevolent saviour is going to pay an amount no less than the balance outstanding under the loan notes in any case. I'm not sure who the person who thinks the PLC is protected was talking to - Steward? Mate of the groundsman? Someone from the ticket office? In any case, with respect to the stadium, I think you'll find that's owned by the SPV set-up for the original securitisation and bond issue. Possibly "St Marys Stadium Limited", the business of which is to "operate sports arenas & stadiums".

That's completely untrue. It's not borderline.