Guided Missile

For a bloke who normally posts intelligently this is incredibly naive.

 

It is not about repyaing the debt now, it is about agreeing to sell the business as a going concern.

 

If the entire club was liquidated, different story.

As a person who has had first hand experience of administration and the way administrators think, I can assure you I am not naive. The only reason that the administrator would sell the club as a going concern, would be if he could raise more money, than selling the assets of SLH separately. Take it from me, there is NO way Southampton Leisure Holdings plc is, or will be sold as, a going concern. 8.5% interest on the Stadium loan, vs a 0.5% base rate is the biggest reason, for a start. The second reason is that our team is second from the bottom in the Championship and likely to get relegated to a place where 14,000 average crowds are a rarity. Liquidation occurs far later in the procedure and as Clapham Saint may tell you, when every asset of value has already been sold.

No, this is an SLH asset sale, where the buyer avoids any contingent liabilities SLH may have, together with the ability to renegotiate the terms of the loans together with any other contracts SLH may have entered into...

GM, I think you are getting confused. Having looked at the accounts, player registrations are only included as intangible assets of the group on a consolidated basis, I assume that they are within SFCL.

The reason I may be confused, concerning the player registrations and where the corresponding intangible asset figure resides, is that I haven't assumed that they are within the legal entity, SFCL. You may be right, from an accounting standpoint, but I don't think that matters. The reason you are forced to assume who holds the player registrations is because the Group has not shown the individual P&L and Balance Sheets, nor the related inter-company transactions. The reason they haven't done this is because, from the 2008 Annual Report:

 

"The Group has one main business segment, that of professional football operations. As a result, no additional business segment information is required to be provided."

 

This is what will trigger the 10 point deduction, IMO...

Why should Barclay's be worried when they'll be covered by insurance on the overdraft?

Says who?? I would be amazed...

And what about the small, local businesses who are doubtless owed money by SLH and will be way down the pecking order?

 

I imagine that they "give a shiiit" if they don't get paid.

Who cares? They're only run by "Southamptoners", anyway...

 

************irony alert***********

Your stock answer? But utterly misguided. I have listened to and thought about all the cons of the previous regime.

Frank' date=' just tell Alpine he had you at boring, idiotic moronic f***witted sod and bat your eyelashes. He's bound to get a hard on...

I may be misremembering this, but I seem to recall that Jackson's Farm was listed in the books as an asset at around 5 million, which is close the the valuation of the players, and is a non-football asset for which the PLC had a "first refusal" development contract with some builder outfit (I forget which) -- a contract the PLC was waiting out I believe. Would that not invalidate your 10 point deduction argument?

It's on the books at a value of £1.1M.

As for GM's points about the accounts (and not having seen them, this is a question rather than a counterargument) - wouldn't they be consolidated accounts for the group, including PLC and SFC? PLC's own accounts may only show the value of the shareholding in SFC, Jackson's Farm etc. Unfortunately, they seem to have been removed from the OS so haven't been able to check.

The plc's 2008 consolidated accounts are here.

They include the value of the players registrations as intangible assets, so any argument that the plc is a separate entity not entirely associated with football and associated football debts won't wash, IMO. 10 points deducted or my d! cks a bloater...

A quick glance at the Balance Sheet from last year may give a clue. The plc had net assets of £2,296K as of last year. The majority of our assets, outside the value of the stadium are in the form of intangible assets (players to you and me) valued at £6,376K.

Two interesting facts will not escape the forensic accountants and the administrators from this. The first is that the plc consists mainly of assets that are related to football, ie the Stadium and the players registrations. So, that's a 10 point deduction, as far as I can see.

The second is that to have any hope of paying back Barclays, the adminstrator needs to raise well over £6M from Southampton Football Club Ltd and collect as much of the Trade Debtors and Cash Equivalents as they can. The trouble is, I can't see anyone paying anywhere near £23M for St. Mary's, so any shortfall from this will come straight out of what Barclays can get their hands on.

So, for the Administrator to get his Brucie bonus, he will want £15M for Southampton Football Club Ltd., £15M for the Stadium and Jackson's Farm and £750K for himself.

Frankly, I reckon 50p in the pound (£4.5M for the club, £10M for the stadium and farm and £500K for the Administrator after the 10 point deduction) will be a real achievement...

Deary me. Cliches, jingoism and abuse.

I know, Alpine, you must be ashamed. Pity you were never able to find a Southampton girl to marry, although I can understand the attraction of an Austrian bride. As they say in Austria: "Women are like good wine, best left to mature in a cellar."

You must have missed the first 2/3 of my post, followed in the last paragraph with the use of the word "some" then....

 

Your comment about requirements for therapy was obviously auto-biographical....

Alpine, you obviously have trouble making friends and this must have led to your unhappy attempt at making a life in Southampton with your Austrian bride. The fact that you are forced to live in the land of Hitler and looted Jewish gold is hardly my fault, nor, indeed any of the other inhabitants of this beautiful City, which happened to build the plane that helped defeat your adopted countryman. Please don't take it out on me. My wife is American, has lived here happily for 25 years and takes people as she finds them. If you did, maybe you wouldn't be so bitter with the sad life you lead, so clearly reflected in your posts...

If the vocal few had kept their mouths shut in 2003 we would have seen the appointment of Glenn Hoddle and would most likely be contemplating yet another season of unbroken premier football today !

Priceless!

 

Dalek, I assume by your name, you are a Doctor Who fan. Your Hoddle obsession also suggests that you have the use of all your limbs. It also suggest that, you're over the age of 40, you still live with your mother and at some point when she was pregant with you she was frightened by a large co ckerel.

Give it a rest, mate. There's a thin line between being charmingly eccentric and scarily mental...

Hows your conscience Charlie http://www.clubfanzine.com/southampton/v2.showNews.php?id=19165

The £5,614.54 raised should just about cover Mark Fry's awayday to Wolves....

I can't decide which of these generalisations is more offensive:

 

The problem with Southampton is that its populated with Southamptoners, some of which are the most miserable, negative, aggressive, scummy toss-pots it has even been my misfortune to encounter, and thats saying something considering I studied in Manchester.

Amazed you got through without being mugged/stabbed/raped by some psychotic drugged up Pole.

 

A delightful thread sullied by two posters in need of therapy, IMHO.

You do talk some complete and utter rubbish.

 

When Crouch bought his shares, he wrote through an open letter, to the board outlining his intentions and what he thought the board should do (Which basically translated as **** off).

He was never allied with Lowe and infact lowe treated him like ****e until he realised he needed him......bet lowe wished cowen had been able to make that baord meeting now LMFAO

 

Stop making things up 19c...... it takes away credibility from your one post that did make sense

I would beg to differ with your version of events. Up to that last minute, rather than allying with either side, Crouch was hoping for a "unity" board, with Lowe, Wilde and Crouch on the board. As Lowe had turned down (chortle, chortle) Crouch's offer of 65p for his shares, because Lowe wanted the offer to be made to all the shareholders in his cabal, Crouch decided to side with Wilde, who did indeed want a clean sweep of the board, with, as he told Lowe/Cowen, no "toffs" on board. This version is confirmed here.

I'm boycotting the parks until they get rid of the f****** Mayor...

Interesting to note that the £500,000 being described as what is necessary to keep the club going to the end of the season is about the same as I've read from a few sources that Lowe and Cowen took away in severance payments first time around....

Very interesting, Alpine. Where did you read this? I might want to use this fact in my next thread...

That is not what I was told. The overdraft was reduced by the club back end of last year but rising again thereafter. That was when the "goalposts" were moved it has been told to me. If Dave Jones has told you different I would be interested to know.

Ron, it amazes me that Dave Jones gives you, a retired insurance manager and Steve, a former Finance Director and now a "downshifted" teacher, details of the cashflow problems of a listed company, before shareholders like me and more importantly AIM.

It also amazes me that he is STILL in a position that involves having anything to do with the finances of the club. It's like putting OJ Simpson in charge of the police department investigating his wife's murder...

yes ok thats the 2 annual reports but where does it say that we need £500k to keep going?

This does..

 

You're not a teacher, by any chance, are you Mike? It feels like you're marking a homework assignment...

source??

This and this...

John would you like to tell me how the Saints Trust invited WIlde on board? He was going to come on board whether the ST liked it or not. As for rewarding TWO sets of directors severence pay, come on! It was in their contracts and you know as well as I do, when you reach that level of management it is part of the course even if you **** up!

Actually, the ST and it's members liked Wilde a lot. So much so that they rolled over and let him tickle Steve Godwin's tummy with the promise of a fan on board. I'm not saying that Wilde and his mentors, Crouch and the Saints Trust, didn't, by their lack of objectivity and background checks, help place the club in a contractual position that required expensive termination payments. What I am saying is that maybe they should send the bucket collectors round to the former Directors houses that benefited to the tune of over £1M, just for being bad at their jobs. Dulieu's position, FFS, was not even supposed to be one which attracted a salary in the manifesto of Chairman Wilde, but I bet this permatanned, ex-copper must have made a far sight more out of Southampton Football Club, just for being sh! te at his job, than a lot of staff at the club have in 10 years. I can see the guy now, using the money to improve his golf game in Portugal, while fans are shaking buckets outside St Mary's....

To put that figure in perspective, it is less than the amount that was spent by the Wilde regime on Termination Payments (£560K) in the 2006 accounts (ie to get rid of Lowe and Cowen).

 

It is also less than the amount that was spent by the Wilde /Lowe regime for the Compensation for loss of office (£600K) in the 2008 accounts (ie to get rid of Hoos, Dulieu, Hone and Oldknow).

 

Now, excuse me for dredging this up, but am I the only one to think that the current state of affairs is sad enough, but for Crouch and the Saints Trust to come out and ask the cash strapped fans to raise £500K to allow the club to keep going, my first response would be to tell them to go and take a jump off Dock Head. My second response would be that as both of them were partly responsible for inviting that incompetent scouser Wilde on board, who managed to reward TWO sets of Directors to the tune of £1.1M, maybe, just maybe, the first phone call would be to some of those failed directors, to ask if maybe they could post a cheque to the club, in the sum of one half of their generous and tax-free payoffs.

 

Actually, forget it. The situation at Saints has got to the stage where it is so ridiculous that the only way I can cope, is to view it as a situation akin to Woolworth's. After Woolworth's administration, I might have popped in to the Woolston branch with the rest of the crowds to bask in the nostalgia of the pick and mix, but if a bloke with a bucket outside the shop had asked me for a few bob to keep it going, I would have laughed in his face.

 

This time I think I'll do the same as I do, with the Big Issue sellers in London and tell him, "Mate, I already f****** donated....big time"

 

(PS I know I bang on about fans not being consumers, but, really, I've changed my view and am fresh out of goodwill)

There might equally be opinions just as valid that those who are prepared to attend and pay whatever the club choose to charge, regardless of whether it is absolute dross are the muppets.

 

As a more sensible debate, who is to blame if attendances drop because the fans are served up dross? The fans, or the people who are responsible for that overpriced dross?

Thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge on what differentiates a true fan from a punter looking for a couple hours light entertainment.

TBH, you're just a fickle windbag, whom the club will be well rid of next season. I'm glad I don't have to read your self preening and false justification for your absence from St. Mary's next season, as some sort of boycott against Lowe. Me? I'll be with at St. Marys with the rest of the muppets. Enjoy the shopping trips with the missus. You will have lots of fun, complaining about the fruit and vegetables at M&S.

What are you going on about?????

 

Why is it a consequence of Rule 34 being circumvented?????

Rule 34 ensured that football clubs were run for the benefit of the fans and the community, not the directors or shareholders, numbnuts. It prevented some idiot with more money than sense, buying a few shares, deceiving a few gormless fans into supporting him and spunking all the club's money, on a sh! t or bust gamble to get promoted to the Premiership and thus potentially making lots of money for himself and his cronies along the way.

 

The question in this thread what other way can fans get rid of a board they don't like and the obvious way is for the fans to own the club. Rule 34 encouraged this type of structure, by removing the profit motive, levelling the playing field, which, without it, now favours rich sons of gun runners....

OK....how about turning this argument on it's head....

 

Someone name a better method of achieving a fresh start in the boardroom other than Administration. (By "fresh start" I mean seeing the back of Lowe, Wilde and Crouch).

You're assuming that the fans have a right to determine the makeup of the board. That only works when the fans own the club, a la Barcelona. In the absence of a Bundesliga rule in which all the clubs in the German league require at least a 50% shareholding by the fans, you'll just have to accept that the only people that can determine the makeup of the board are the shareholders, even clueless ones like Wilde. Not perfect, but the consequences of the FA scrapping Rule 34. As David Conn wrote in his excellent article in the Observer Sport Monthly, Sunday 29 July 2007:

 

....later codified as the FA's Rule 34, these restrictions established the culture that being a club director was a form of public service, that directors should be 'custodians', to support and look after clubs. There never was a golden age of selfless club owners, but the system of clubs as not-for-profit companies did provide the basis for their phenomenal growth. Fans were never overcharged, which helped to encourage loyalty and return visits. But it was not all good news: lack of investment led to decrepit facilities, a failure to deal with hooliganism and crumbling and unsafe grounds.

The FA and their rules were in need of updating as football itself changed and modernised, but instead they surrendered completely. When, in 1983, Irving Scholar's Tottenham Hotspur became the first club to announce the intention of floating on the stock market, the club's advisers asked the FA if Spurs would be free to form a holding company to evade the FA's restrictions on dividends and directors' salaries. The FA, who have never explained why, permitted Spurs to do what they wanted. Every other club that floated after that formed holding companies similarly, to bypass the FA's rules.

Football clubs became companies for sale like any others, against the 'heritage' and rules once insisted upon by their governing body. No other country has a perfect system, but in Spain the tradition of the membership club survives. Barcelona and Real Madrid are both owned by members who democratically elect a president and board. The clubs are resented for receiving the largest share of Spanish football's TV money and are ruthlessly ambitious, but nevertheless Barcelona, particularly, embody a sense of belonging in their very structure. When Roman Abramovich went looking for a major club to buy in 2003, he considered first Barca and Real, but discovered that, because they were member-owned, they were beyond his reach. Spanish clubs that were in debt in the early 1990s were required by law to convert to limited companies but, alongside Barca and Real, Athletic Bilbao and Real Sociedad survive as member clubs and bastions of Basque belonging.

In Germany, the football association stipulate that Bundesliga clubs must be 51 per cent owned by their members, the fans. This is one part of a general policy maintained by the German FA that clubs should remain connected to their local communities, with prices affordable to young and poorer people. At Schalke 04, entry to league matches at the magnificent 62,000-capacity Veltins Arena (including safe, modern terracing for 17,000 people to stand) begins at €9 (£6).

In my opinion, nothing is clear yet, so you and nickh are Lowe sympathisers doing nothing more than scaremongering.

I am struggling with your logic that if I'm anti-administration, I am a Lowe sympathiser. That's like me saying that because you moved to Austria, you're in favour of keeping children in cellars.

I'll forgive you for your irrational and abusive nature, because it must be tough being forced to program microwaves all day. I can see you now, hiding in your study, frightened that you'll hear the sound of your mother-in-law's army boots outside the room, as she demands why you aren't able to buy her daughter a new dress. It's bound to make anyone bitter and abusive...