Rational Rich

As I can't go to the game tomorrow, I've spent my £15 on Euromillions. COME ON!

Lowe's quoted in the FT attacking Barclays: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67f4d396-1f80-11de-a7a5-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

It's probably best not to take as gospel the words of journalists who probably only know half the story. What they're probably talking about is that SFCL don't own staplewood or sms but there wouldn't be anything to stop the buyers of SFCL making an offer to the administrators for them.

I'm not sure we've got that luxury. Any port in a storm.

I've just sent a link to another one to all my list by mistake (searched under Southampton FC). Is there any way of combining the two? JOined this one too.

It is 100% owned by SLH.

In very simple terms, you still technically own shares in SLH but they are worthless. What will happen is that the administrators of SLH will sell its assets to get funds to pay off the creditors as far as possible. This will (hopefully) include selling the shares in the SFCL to investors who can take the club forward, the stadium and the training ground (though not necessarily all to the same purchaser). Once the assets have been disposed of and the proceeds distributed to creditors, the company will be wound up. Then the shares will not exist anymore.

According to the administrator press conference (the echo has footage on the website) the football club board is David JOnes and a bloke called (I think) kevin Toynbee (it was difficult to hear the name clearly). The rest have resigned.

I heard it as Kevin Toynbee, but may be wrong.

I'd go and watch Man Utd, couldn't say I'd support them though. Once the emotion has gone, you're purely buying a product and so you may as well buy the best (and in my case the nearest!)

From LSE website - note the key bit about the subsidiary Southampton Leisure Holdings plc ("SLH" or "the Company") Appointment of Administrators The Board announces today that it has appointed Mark Fry and David Hudson of Begbies Traynor (South) LLP as joint administrators to the Company. Rupert Lowe, Andrew Cowen and Michael Wilde have resigned as directors of the Company with immediate effect. Southampton Football Club Limited, a subsidiary of the Company, is unaffected by these insolvency proceedings.

On OS - press conference at 1pm http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11581

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Football League rules, particularly the rule on insolvency and points deduction? Had thought the League's website or a Google search would have done the trick, but so far no luck. As a pedantic lawyer, I'm interested to see the exact wording of the rule to see (in my own humble, non-sports law opinion) where I think we stand.

Um, do you have a copy of the full wording of the relevant rule, as a pedantic lawyer it would be interesting to see exactly what it says. Cheers Rich

Frank, the Times reported earlier that SLH have gone into admin, but no-one else seems to be following their lead. However, they seemed to be setting the agenda last night/this morning and so may have sources who are close to what is happening. At some point a notice to appoint administrators and an appointment will need to be filed at court, so it may just be a case of form filling and submission before an official announcement is made. No-one is issuing statements refuting this, which you would expect if it was not imminent (due to the impact the rumours could have on the business).

New Times article, insinuates that SLH is in administration, but nothing on LSE yet. Also mentions the lack of a 10 point penalty. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article6015565.ece

Provided it's done for fair value and doesn't put the creditors in a worse position, nothing.

Not the case. SLH will only bring SFC down if SFC is guaranteeing its debts (which is more than possible), but it might be decided by the beneficiaries of the guarantee (probably Barclays, NU) that a sale of the shares of the club to a third party would get them more money back than claiming under the guarantee.

Four wins and a draw needed imho. That's do-able, but it's gonna be close.

Stu, all trust members get to vote on the make up of the board and there are procedures in place for the board to be changed, should trust members so wish. They are elected to represent the members, like any other representative. To canvass the membership on every issue and statement would be impractical, just as it is impractical to have a referendum on every issue your local council has to decide. I am a trust member, know none of the board, live miles away from any pub they may drink in, but it is democratic organisation (something you would discover if you chose to join) and could be a real force for good/change if enough willing fans were to join to give it a critical mass (as has been the case at many other clubs in peril).

And how could the Trust get funds to buy shares hand over fist - from the supporters joining. And guess what, when you join, you get a vote and can then influence the policies of the trust. SO why not join and try to change things if you're not happy with how the current Trust board are handling things. Also means they can buy more shares on behalf of all the members.

I think the point is that at this crucial time (and as is clear in the statement, for the short term) we shouldn't be pro or anti anything except pro Southampton Football Club. The clear message is united we stand, divided we fall and surely we can see that this is the case from what has happened over the past 5 or so years. People need to rise above the squabbles and do what is best for the greater good. We need to stay up and stay solvent in the short term, long term we can look to make changes. Despite how obvious this is, no-one (at board level or, if this board is representative (which it almost certainly isn't) amongst the fans) seems prepared to do it. If pressure is put on all three of the main protagonists by everyone to sort it (rather than pros and antis whoever pressurising the others) something may get done. At the moment we seem content to continue to tear everyone else apart and bring the club down with it. Have we just got used to the misery these days that we can't remember when things were normal? As I said, I can't see it working, but like with the SOS thing last year, it's got to be worth a go. What is there to lose? By the way, whilst being a paid up member of the Trust I have no involvement in the trust board or know any of those who run it, so this is purely my personal opinion, without any agenda other than my own support of SFC.

At least they are attempting to do something constructive, coming up with alternative suggestions (whether good or bad) and trying to strike a middle ground, rather than just wingeing about the status quo. The only way through at the moment, assuming Paul Allen's yacht has not been sighted off Calshot Spit, is for all interested parties to put their petty prejudices behind them and work together for the good of the club. Will never happen though, not with the personalities involved.

It would be a brave bank who did that, what with all the negative PR it would create across the football community (other than a few square miles in East Hampshire), given Barclays heavy involvement with football. Also, if we pull clear, there is more chance of them getting their money back from us continuing to trade (maybe even successfully, resulting in increased gates and possibly the premiership), so whilst they technically could (assuming we can't repay them immediately) the likelihood is that they won't.