Nineteen Canteen

I've just bought six tickets... Managed to get some gooners to go with me and my son as they felt they wanted to support their local club in times of need. Hope they didn't mean palace!!!

Well done, our creditors will be pleased. Pity you couldn't make it earlier in the season.

Just reported in thr last half hour:-

 

Luton director Stephen Browne admits the club are prepared to take legal action against the Football League if they fail to dock points from Southampton.

 

The Saints' future has been thrown into doubt recently as their parent company, Southampton Leisure Holdings, have gone into administration and they have so far avoided a points deduction.

 

"We don't necessarily know all the ins and outs. It's easy for us to be outraged, but not until we know the facts," Browne told Luton Today.

 

The Hatters were handed a 20-point penalty for a similar offence last season when their holding company Jayten entered administration and Browne is keen for consistency.

 

"The Football League have continually spoken about the integrity of the competition, but if there is some way football clubs can rack up debts and put them in the name of a holding company, who is their 100 per cent owner, and enter insolvency, anything can happen to that company with no result to the football club," he added.

 

"Personally I would be staggered if the Football League turn around and allow this to happen without a deduction."

Wes, no surprises there, will all clubs who have been deducted points please from an orderly queue. In the meantime all Football Club Chairman are busily restructuring their clubs and creating Holding Companies with fancy names. The winners it seems will be forensic accountants presumably these are accountants who simply know what they are doing.

I bet Nineteen Canteen doesn't know what the chocolate boxes were.

Ask Toomer if you want to know about them Tame. I learn a lot on here even the alledged whereabouts of Justin Fashanu.

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.

Clapham, are there rules around timings of receipt of interests and then how long it takes for these be assessed by the Administrator before presentation to the creditors? Is their a duty on the Administrator to prove a 'bid's' claim in terms of available funds/business proposal?

Just interested if you have any idea how long we will effectively remain in limbo? Do you have any thoughts on the forensic accounting requested by the League and what conclusion they are most likely to make based on you knowledge on the outside looking in?

Your insight would be of interest to many.

still better than having Lowe. Still would have needed investment, people refused to deal with him, probably because he wanted far to much per share. I bet even he wishes he took the sisu (or whatever they were called) bid.

Mike, I think you're better and more insightful than this post of your's suggests. Playing Alpine's game doesn't suit you, doesn't suit alpine either but each to their own.

but that doesn't preclude their mates of course...........

 

maybe

Otherwise potentially known as underwriters. I think we have to take Duncan's response at face value and it is unlikely that any new director will not have any links whatsoever to our past we can only hope they don't seek their counsel to any great degree.

Like you said though if an ex-director had the only acceptable bid vs liquidation as the only other option then fans would have to support that bid wholeheartedly even if it mean't supporting any of the principal protaganists of our recent history.

Survival is better than extinction but god lets hope it doesn't come to that.

19C, you can rest assured the one consortium I was referring to does not (to the best of my current knowledge) include anyone who has previously been a director of either the PLC or Football Board.

Thank you, Duncan. That's reassuring as IMO it is the only way to forward from this mess.

The frightening thing is I hear that "Lifelong" is still very "active" and is almost certainly wrapped up in at least one of the consortiums. This sort of thing is why I remain anxious that Fry makes the "right" decision.

Need Clapham Saint to comment but in the unlikely event Lifelong has the strongest bid Fry puts it forward and the Creditors make the decision. Surely, the administrator is obligated to put forward the best bids without influence. Not sure as I'm not accountant but there must be regulatory rules that govern how these bids are managed and fry's role I assume is to complete the due diligence and present them without making any right or worng decisions and certainly not based on what is good for us.

Duncan - this is exactly what I mean when I have been typing that it would be nice for Mr Fry to announce that he will consider the best offer for the Club rather than the Bank per se.

 

Can't see him doing that - but some reassurance is needed.

Robbie you really make me laugh and cry in equal measure. You got your cake and now you want to it, well time to wake up and smell the coffee all our rights went out the window when Fry and Co walked in. In essence we pretty much have got what we deserved as we failed to support the club and the one thing you want you are not going to get unless you are creditor.

The administrator is there to act on behalf of the creditors and ensure they are repaid what they are owed (A) and hopefully sell the club as a going concern (B).

If A can't be achieved with B and debts repaid in full then the club will be either liquidiated and closed down and proceeds put towards the companies debt for distribution or partial repayment agreed couple with most convincing business plan to satisfy future repayment of creditors.

Your reassurance doesn't come into Robbie we as supporters are out of the loop. Lets all have a boycott to show our displeasure shall we?

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

Your summary FF is exactly as I see the situation and as i said on another thread - what is good for the goose is not necessarily going to be good for the gander. The creditors will be motivated by money and repayment in full and will go for the highest bid presumably if the available funds are proven which I assume Fry and his team will do all the due diligence.

Many warned about that Administration was a very risky proposition not least Clapham Saint who works in the industry and was very erudite in explaining our options should the worse happen. His post didn't make good reading back then and even less so now but there seems to be very little we can do about it.

I would counter though that if your known consortium A contains ex- board directors, club managers etc it maybe best there interest is outbid. No point IMO going through this massive risk to end up with a individuals who helped create the mess in the first place no matter how big or small their contribution. Can you confirm if the consortium you are aware of is completely made up 100% of new blood and with no links to the past, i.e a new representative being bankrolled by a past director?

We really need a clean sweep if we have any hope of uniting the fanbase regardless of how popular some may view certain individuals of a consortium bid. Many hold different and equally valid opinions and the division can only stop if we start with a completely clean page and no eraser marks.

Your are correct I fear.

 

 

One party could come in with an offer of say £5 million with a view to selling off loads of players with a view to recouping their outlay.

 

 

While another could offer £4 million with a view to not selling players.

 

 

Am I right?

Or perhaps someone could buy us just to acquire our land assets as future speculation and close the club down.

Gaydamak could buy us and merge us with Pompey.

All unlikely maybe but i wouldn't discount anything except the likliehood of the best offer from 34 being the same for the club as the best for the creditors as remote because of the different motivations.

I know all that! My point is that we now have bids on the table, which because of the rediculous politics of the club (under Lowe, Wilde, Hone, Crouch and Lowe & Wilde, their back-biting and completely inflated share asking price), we never managed before.

You are still missing the point that many posters other than me are now making. Of those 34 bids our creditors may actually select the one bid that would be deemed a disaster for the club for many reasons. No one is acting in the interests of the Sainst supporter. the men you mentioned in varying degrees would have done their best to act in the interests of the supporters.

Its out of our hands, including Fry's

Your last sentence sets a worrying tone. The more consortiums there are the more the price for the club rises leaving less money for the football side of things after any transaction. The administrator is just chasing cash for the creditors - is he worried where that cash comes from?

No of course he is not as long as it can be proven before he puts it forward the cash is to hand. This has been my concern all along that it is not the administrator we should be concerned about but what Barclays are willing to accept not forgetting the other creditors. I suspect it's nothing short of full repayment and failing that they could refuse to accept any proposals put forward from the administrator based on part repayment and the best business plan.

I very much doubt that what is good for our creditors will exacly mirror what is good for the club and it's supporters and in fact could see the club being liquidated or of cries, the devil you know and all that.

Makes Alpine's boasts so ill informed and badly judged to really question if 'fans' like him really do want the club to survive. Nothing is worth the risk we have now exposed ourselves to, nothing, not even a season long boycott or idiotic, told you so and unjustified one liners.

Was trying to avoid the blame game that always starts.

 

Admin is a desperately dangerous time, and we don't know if it will be a success - so of course page 1 of management books is about minimizing but taking risks

 

But with so much interest NOW????

 

Oh and Alps - fair point BUT, let's try the

 

Admin earlier may inadvertently have been better for Southampton Football Club by bringing in new blood and investors and giving us a better chance of staying the CCC

 

As opposed to "Admin to get rid of Lowe" at any cost

 

Similar but not quite the same

I appreciate you were trying to avoid the blame game Phil hence my first post in the thread in some attempt to analyse your scenario. As always any thread soon falls into the blame game and in the interests of balance I was merely addressing the usual unbalanced blame game levelled at Lowe who was apparently fatally flawed when like you say the writing on the wall should have been addressed in the Hone/Crouch era.

I actually think that is the best part of the situation we find ourselves in. MF has none of the baggage (disrespect, dislike, mis-trust, spite, oneupmanship etc.) that has blighted our club for the last 5 years.

Krissy you have completely misunderstood MF's role. He is just a conduit between the failed company and it's creditors and is there solely to protect the interests of the latter. MF will not decide, we will put forward the most favourable bids but if they don't meet the creditors demands the club will be liquidated. Our future lies with the simple fact will Barclays and probably HMRC get their money and to a lesser degree (as they have some kind of security) Aviva.

Barclays or Lowe? Don't think there'll be too many at Barclays worried about 15k loyal Saints fans and their wishes more to do with tickiing off the return of over 4 million of their British Pounds and appeasing their own shareholders.

With pearson in charge with Lowe's financial cost cutting talent we could have gone places. Lowe's fatal flaw though is that he always wants to do things his own way

The fatal flaw of our chairman was to show leadership and lead. No doubt Lowe collated the necessary information and then like all leaders in industry, public service, armed forces, politics etc etc the person at the top has to make a decision. Thank god Lowe had that fatal flaw as Crouch was even in his short time the antipathy of a man who leads he listened and at times I think to the wrong people and was unable to decide a path and stick with it.

We talk about Lowe didn't do this and didn't do that why didn't Crouch start cutting costs drastically in December 2007? Who was he listening to?

Been reading and analysing lots of opinions and hints the last few days and something that 19C said (in an unrelated way) made me wonder if Lowe inadvertently made the biggest mistake of all.

 

"The club was heading for financial meltdown when he and Wilde returned" is something I recall being said ages ago

 

"It would not have lasted until Christmas" was 19C

 

these comments made me think

 

Lowe gambled with our season in a desperate attempt to stave off Administration (ie save shareholder value but also protect the "clubs" assets)

 

I expect the actual accounts to show that he did a good job on this (but obviously not good enough for Barclays)

 

BUT, with 34 enquiries now received, possibly 3 or 4 of them serious, can it not now be argued that while still INCREDIBLY dangerous for our long term survival, MAYBE just maybe we should have taken admin BEFORE Christmas or EVEN back in May.

 

Think back to May, Lehman Bros had not happened, people were more inclined to still do "deals".

Maybe the CLUB could have started the season on -10 points but still had the semblance of a squad and MANAGER and new owners that could have scraped survival.

 

Even around September when Barclays are said to have cut the O/D, there was still some money around, still time to rescue a season even WITH 10 points penalty.

 

But today? Well if we can get 34 people in THIS environment..... Maybe a proper manager could have got more out of the team - how many times did JP drop points with wrong selections that even he admitted blame for...

 

So no this isn't a new go at Lowe, I think the financial facts will eventually show he came close to performing a miracle of recovery in our finances (IF ONLY HE HAD STAYED AWAY FROM THE FOOTBALL SIDE), but I think one of the unforeseen events of his return was to actually hasten our demise

 

anyway something different to argue about during the "takeover phoney war" quiet period

I wouldn't disagree with your synopsis DP but all hindsight is 20/20 and you don't put yourselves in administration your creditors do so it would have needed some deliberate action to expedite that event which I think would have gone against most human instincts to save what you have.

I certainly wouldn't have taken administration in May as I presume we would have been relegated and to take it during any part of the season will have a detrimental effect on the staff especially the players as we have witnessed and Wotte (excuse or otherwise) has told us about. I don't put much stall in 34 expressions of interest, a house can have that many viewings but never get sold for many reasons and to express an interest is merely a no cost and unobligated way of getting yourself in the loop. Who can confirm you and I have not individually expressed an interest?

Summer of 2007 we were ripe for a takeover because it was shortly after Northern Rock went to the wall and then Feb 2008 Bear Stearns crashed and was the harbinger of even worse to come. Before the end of last season credit was being squeezed and the banks and the rating agencies were running for cover so perhaps it could be argued that only now as the fog turns to a less threatening mist in the financial market that people are prepared to take a risk.

One thing is certain nobody considers us seriously worthy of takeover unless they could buy us on the cheap and that I don't think reflects well on many people's overly inflated opinion of our status in the wider football community. Ideally we need a strong businessman with flair and brilliant communication skills and hopefully one who just happens to be a fan but not one concerned about his popularity in fan-related opinion polls. We need someone to inject their intelligent capital not necessarily ongoing small amounts of cash and someone who will surround himself with like minded forward thinking individuals instead of the short sighted and parochial 'rich fan' injecting relatively small amounts of cash to be effectively meaningless in the long term future of the club. One thing is already clear compromise is going to be needed on both sides of the new consortium's boardroom door.

You raise an interesting point but ultimately for me it would go against my gut feel to instinctively work hard at saving what you have and building on that platform. Administration vs New Owners? Time will tell if we have actually lost on both fronts.

Not my fellow lowe dancing troupe, just interested to know how you seem to know who is a season ticket holder or not

Warwick it suits his agenda so he doesn't have to think about responding coherently to an alternative argument. Its quite obvious the only games he attends is either Bristol C or Plymouth away and perhaps could take a leaf out of your book and attend home games courtesy of a 200mile round trip.

Unlike others I suspect, I respect your honesty but to attribute the same level of culpability to fans as to the Chairman I find wholly unjustifiable.

 

I agree on your assessment of Wilde and with Crouch I find his only redeeming quality that he has placed his own money into the club which is something that can only also be said of the fans.

 

I don't agree that it was a 'matter of time' before we were relegated, however. I think this shows a real lack (not of ambition) but of essetial business thinking and planning. I guarantee that Everton, Aston Villa, West Ham and a host of other 'mid-size' clubs do not think like this. It is the reason that those clubs sought and found external finance. Something we did not do.

That's where we differ in assessing who our peer group is. I certainly wouldn't include Everton, Villa or West Ham who all have more religious like followings and the fact you can buy their shirts in high street shops supports my feeling they have not only enjoy very strong local support but more wider support as well. I agree we should have sought further finance but personally I always liked the fact we were a smaller club with a strong pedigree punching above our weight without an obvious benefactor and not with a weak pedigree like Blackburn, Fulham, Portsmouth and Wigan for example.

To use horse race parlance I would class us as a Group 2 club, based on pedigree, expectation and size with the likes of Sunderland, Middlesborough, Bolton, WBA, Wolves, Birmingham, Derby, Ipswich, Coventry, Charlton, Leeds, Leicester and no doubt a few more.

Teams like Reading, Hull, Stoke etc defy classification because they don't ahve any redeemimg qualities and hopefully 1 day they will return where they came from.

A very knowledgeable little wise owl told me 19 is not a supporter and does not go to Saints games.

Wos it to you..Are you his keeper....We are having a chat...He dosen't go to games like many of Ruperts followers....You probably do as I can see from some of your footballing posts...but not 19.never a Saint.

 

Anyway this is 19 and me chatting...Strange interuption saintwarwick old boy.

I'd love to know the name of your owl because if he is the source of all your knowledge you need a new source. Seek and ye shall find.

I am absolutely convinced that you are not a season ticket holder and you do not go to St Marys......If you do..YOU certainly do not give that impression in your many previous posts under your various disguises. Very strange....You're an armchair Rupert Bear wannabe.

You seem convinced that not supporting the club and letting it's future be placed in the hands of our creditors which happens to be a nervous bank and probably HMRC as a good thing. Kind of renders your convinced thinking as a touch worthless IMO.

As someone who campaigned for people to attend, I agree in part with you, many fans stayed away for reasons of football and our porsity at it, not Rupert Lowe.

 

However, when dishing out blame what is your honest assessment of the share that should be attributed to the following:

 

Lowe

Crouch

Fans

 

Be honest.

OK I'll be honest but don't want to go back over the previous Lowe tenure because much good was done and bad decisions were also made. He was in part responsible for relegation but eventually with our situation it was only a matter of time before any Saints chairman would oversee our relegation from the Premiership.

So on that basis I would find them all equally culpable and would obviously throw in Wilde who was probably twice as at fault than the other 3 for promising much and delivering and effectively fleecing the club of it's reserves to fund what he said he could raise. Its bizarre because of his association with Lowe and desire to hate Lowe he slips under the radar.

Wilde 40%

Crouch 20%

Lowe 20%

Fans 20%

I would give my reasons for the other 3 but i think I've done that so many times now I'm beginning to bore myself.

The only people to have come out of this with any merit are the loyal supporters who have never stopped attending games no matter what our league poistion or performance levels and the back room staff. There are one or two players I could throw in as being culpable but as its a team game and generally i think the team have performed to their level of ability in difficult circumstances i guess that would be churlish. Ok take 1% off them all and attribute 4% to the likes of Euell, Skacel, Idiakez, Wright, Thomas, Powell, Wotton and to a lesser degree and for different reasons Surman and Lallana.

Oh please. Do me a favour. Is it my fault for not buying a Range Rover that Jaguar Land Rover is in the sh!t as well?

 

Football fans are fickle - that clearly comes as a shock to you...

 

Rupert wanted customers. That's what he got.

 

And now he's complaining?

 

Too late Macduff, too late.

 

(Spoken as someone who has been to just as many home games this season as any season in the Premiership and before or since).

The point I am trying to make as have many others this season is that our fans unfortunately are more fickle than most. At least those clubs that we would consider our equal. Difficult to see any investor signing on the dotted line with so many of the club's fans unable or unwilling to match the new owner's investment with ticket purchases.

I am interested to see, after your first sentence, you went on to agree with the rest of my rubbish as you so politely put it...Still think you have no idea about the Saints or football. Mind you some of you old boys go to his tea parties at some games and then strangely disappeared when he was ousted for a couple of years.....Pot kettle etc from some of your rantings about Saints fans....

 

Tell me who you are 19 and I will varify your status as a ST holder or even if you go to games...Go on show us your money for the Saints survival....Has Rupert?

I am Nineteen Canteen and been around a long while. My money for Saints Survival? It was sitting in the bank along with the other ST holders as part of last season's March Madness offers and given over although we had the prospect of listening to more popular rhetoric about investment from Crouch and increasingly bizarre predictions about the play offs.

So why didn't more ST holders stump up in March when Lowe was a mere shareholder? Lowe returned and it seemed like a convienient excuse for many to confirm they would not renew and desert the club and how many are fund raising? Bit like forgetting to visit a terminally ill relative but making a big show of attending the funeral.

Many fans used Lowe as an excuse but I would venture they mistakingly believed we are a Premeirship club and like spoilt kids didn't like watching championship football which considering we have only been in the top flight 34 seasons out of our 124 year history is a tad delusionary.

I accepted it. I watch and pay to do so. However, YOU blame fans for not paying to watch tripe when Lowe insisted we were customers. Ergo, you are living in cuckoo land. How can you expect audience numbers to hold up when we had poor players losing football matches?

 

And if you think 10,000 were staying away because of Rupert, you're totally deluded. To blame them for our financial plight is so misguided as to be insulting.

 

And for your next trick?

Why did they stay away then and fans at Norwich and Derby not desert their clubs - in the latter case how many home games without a win? Over 20? Had they stopped their support maybe the club might not have been able to afford one of the best young managers in the country. Are Derby and Norwich bigger than us? What about Charlton or Sheff Weds the latter a 2 club city and a city with so many leisure facilities I'm surprised they don't average 17,000 a game.

I have never blamed the stay away fans in isolation but you are misguided if you think they are not as culpable as anything and anybody else since Lowe was ousted by Wilde and Crouch latching onto his promises. That is a shared responsibility apart from those who have continued to attend over the past 3 seasons as a ST holder or regular ticket buyer i.e 10 or more home games a season. Note I say continued if fans stopped attending games years ago for whatever reason or never attended that's fine every club has those fans and their opinions are just as welcome. The real problem are those who only attend the big games and act like they are 'real' supporters or worse pledge to only attend away games the very antipathy of a supporter.

Someone a while back summed up the difference between a fan and a supporter. A fan is someone who follows the club but for whatever reason cannot attend games a supporter is simply a fan who attend games.

A plastic is a fan who wants to pretend once or twice a season he is a supporter and a stay away who only supports the team away so as not to support our board, ergo our club is idiotic undeserving scum IMO.