NickG Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 sorry I am just the idiot wanting one? Is there anyone on here who has an accountancy background and knows the implications of administation for a PLC company and its shareholders? Got a bit of an idea for private companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 sorry I am just the idiot wanting one? Is there anyone on here who has an accountancy background and knows the implications of administation for a PLC company and its shareholders? Got a bit of an idea for private companies. Football administration is different because of the disputed Football Creditors Rule. I know that this was being reviewed by the FA but I don't think anything has been decided yet. All football debts have priority status and come before normal priority creditors such as banks and stuff. That's it, I'll let some-one else provide the gumph about the general stuff; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 I know that the figures have been on here before...but can some kind soul list the share percentage ownership of Lowe, Wilde, and Crouch please together with the rest of the major shareholders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 29 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 29 October, 2008 don't think a plc club has gone into administration before has it? Are the implications much different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 don't think a plc club has gone into administration before has it? Are the implications much different? Leeds were a PLC weren't they. May be wrong, they've had so many existences i don't remember top from bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 I know that the figures have been on here before...but can some kind soul list the share percentage ownership of Lowe, Wilde, and Crouch please together with the rest of the major shareholders It's on the OS, article 8873, rule 26 disclosure. Hasn't changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 If there isn't a creditors agreement and football debts aren't settled in full there are further points penalties to the initial 10. The following season further penalties ie Bournemouth 17 and wasn't it 37 at Luton? That could be in our case relegation to div 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkhamsted Saint Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 A quick reality check for anybody that thinks that administration is a good thing and why Saints are working so hard to avoid it. If we went into administration unless there is someone that wants to buy the club it could be wound up and closed down. ie No more football club. All the clubs that have been administration recently have managed found someone wanting to buy the club off the administrator. So club loses some points has to sell some assets and keeps going. There is one big difference now. Debt is extremely difficult to raise, cash is in short supply and we are entering a recession against a background of a credit crunch. I am convinced that over the next 2 years at least one club will go to administration and simply disappear for good. Therefore we have 4 options as a club 1) Be taken over - very very unlikely due to recession and credit crunch 2) Continue we are with the remaining high earners being released and all players available at a price 3) Enter administration hope we can find a buyer, lose virtually the entire first team squad and end up with the current reserve squad as our first team - further relegations, lose the ground? 4) Go out of business as the administrator cant find a buyer Therefore whether you like or hate Lowe he has no option but to continue to take the action he is taking. Replacing Lowe at the current time could lose the confidence of the bank and could mean that club enters administration and disappears. I think the lets go into admin brigade are misguided as they do not understand the risks and the loweout campaign could be the downfall of the club. We therefore need to pull together as a fan base an get behind our club at the current time and stop this in fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 avoid administration and we have a modicum of control over the sale of Surman and Lallana. Go into administration and watch those two assets sold immediately at rock bottom prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 avoid administration and we have a modicum of control over the sale of Surman and Lallana. Go into administration and watch those two assets sold immediately at rock bottom prices. They are gone anyway, but agree with your point that we will have more control over their sales than if we were in admin. As to what Admin means, it really depends on the structure of your debts. Given 70%+ of our debt is secured against the stadium, which we can't do without, Admin for us is very different than for many other clubs and is something i can't get my head around why fans can't understand this. Yes we could **** a few local suppliers, but nothing that means anything in the grand scheme of things. We could even restructure the loan with Norwich Union (Again), but with falling gates and lesser capacity to repay, this doesn't stack up either. There is nobody that will buy the stadium and loan it back and given the sums invloved, even if there was, the return for outlay wouldnt be seen for over 15 years and in todays economy nobody is going to give up that amount of cash for what would be a poor return, over a very long period of time espeacially in something as rocky as a football club. Admin serves a purpose for some clubs, but not for Saints. If it happens, it would hurt us harder than anyone else and The Dell might not be the only football stadium in Southampton to have flats built on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 They are gone anyway, but agree with your point that we will have more control over their sales than if we were in admin. As to what Admin means, it really depends on the structure of your debts. Given 70%+ of our debt is secured against the stadium, which we can't do without, Admin for us is very different than for many other clubs and is something i can't get my head around why fans can't understand this. Yes we could **** a few local suppliers, but nothing that means anything in the grand scheme of things. We could even restructure the loan with Norwich Union (Again), but with falling gates and lesser capacity to repay, this doesn't stack up either. There is nobody that will buy the stadium and loan it back and given the sums invloved, even if there was, the return for outlay wouldnt be seen for over 15 years and in todays economy nobody is going to give up that amount of cash for what would be a poor return, over a very long period of time espeacially in something as rocky as a football club. Admin serves a purpose for some clubs, but not for Saints. If it happens, it would hurt us harder than anyone else and The Dell might not be the only football stadium in Southampton to have flats built on it. On the issue of the stadium why can't the city council buy it and rent it back to us? The Keepmoat at Doncaster was built by the city council and is rented to DRFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 29 October, 2008 Share Posted 29 October, 2008 On the issue of the stadium why can't the city council buy it and rent it back to us? Becuase they are skint and the returns and time it would take to see a return, means they could stick their money in Northern Rock and be far far better off......and anyway the fund for the "lesbian immigrants battered dogs and fish" would be deemed more worthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Bones Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 A quick reality check for anybody that thinks that administration is a good thing and why Saints are working so hard to avoid it. If we went into administration unless there is someone that wants to buy the club it could be wound up and closed down. ie No more football club. And this is the bit that has me baffled why anyone would want Administration ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Please correct me if I am wrong, but is our situation not a bit more copmplicated since the football club is actuallyan assett of the PLC as is the stadium as SMS ltd? As I understood it teh PLC is the holding company for a number of fragmented companies such as the club, the stadium etc. I susupect however that its the football club that has the its debt/overdraft, SMS ltd has its loan and other subsidaries are either OK or have their own debts.... naturally, administration of any one part has an impact on another eg if the club was to fail, SMS ltd would loose its revenue that pays its loan? Is the PLC in debt or just the ltd companies it controls, anyone understand how this financial pie/mess is impacted on by teh financial processes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Please correct me if I am wrong, but is our situation not a bit more copmplicated since the football club is actuallyan assett of the PLC as is the stadium as SMS ltd? As I understood it teh PLC is the holding company for a number of fragmented companies such as the club, the stadium etc. I susupect however that its the football club that has the its debt/overdraft, SMS ltd has its loan and other subsidaries are either OK or have their own debts.... naturally, administration of any one part has an impact on another eg if the club was to fail, SMS ltd would loose its revenue that pays its loan? Is the PLC in debt or just the ltd companies it controls, anyone understand how this financial pie/mess is impacted on by teh financial processes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 (edited) If we went into administration unless there is someone that wants to buy the club it could be wound up and closed down. ie No more football club. That's complete rubbish - would never happen. There will always be a football club in Southampton, St Mary's is completely worthless as anything other than a football stadium and there will always be at the very least 5-10,000 people who want to pay to watch football in Southampton. A football club is like property or any other investment - there will always be a buyer at the right price. Administration would not be good but at the very worst we would drop a league or two, have all our assets sold and have to rent the stadium. We portsmouth not in a similar situation to us a few years ago? They were sold for £1 to Mandric and now look where they are. All we need is Lowe, Wilde and Crouch to agree to sell for 33.3p each and we will be OK. Edited 30 October, 2008 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 (edited) If we went into administration unless there is someone that wants to buy the club it could be wound up and closed down. ie No more football club. That's complete rubbish - would never happen. There will always be a football club in Southampton, St Mary's is completely worthless as anything other than a football stadium and there will always be at the very least 5-10,000 people who want to pay to watch football in Southampton. A football club is like property or any other investment - there will always be a buyer at the right price. Administration would not be good but at the very worst we would drop a league or two, have all our assets sold and have to rent the stadium. We portsmouth not in a similar situation to us a few years ago? They were sold for £1 to Mandric and now look where they are. All we need is Lowe, Wilde and Crouch to agree to sell for 33.3p each and we will be OK. Edited 30 October, 2008 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 On the issue of the stadium why can't the city council buy it and rent it back to us? The Keepmoat at Doncaster was built by the city council and is rented to DRFC. Because every project in Southampton is built with private money. This is why many of the revolutionary visions (WOW factors) they have, either never get built or are nearly always downsized or abandoned half way through. Southampton has a multi-million pound art collection that never sees the light of day but they will never sell it to fund public projects. Hull city council built the KC Stadium (which cost more than SMS) with funds raised from selling off their own telecomunications company. They rent it to Hull City AFC and Hull FC Rugby League Club (although I believe both are shareholders of the holding company in exchange for the council taking over their previous grounds). The lack of stadium debt has enabled Hull City to build their team year-on-year and now they are flourishing in the Premier. Unthinkable only 4 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 On the issue of the stadium why can't the city council buy it and rent it back to us? The Keepmoat at Doncaster was built by the city council and is rented to DRFC. Because every project in Southampton is built with private money. This is why many of the revolutionary visions (WOW factors) they have, either never get built or are nearly always downsized or abandoned half way through. Southampton has a multi-million pound art collection that never sees the light of day but they will never sell it to fund public projects. Hull city council built the KC Stadium (which cost more than SMS) with funds raised from selling off their own telecomunications company. They rent it to Hull City AFC and Hull FC Rugby League Club (although I believe both are shareholders of the holding company in exchange for the council taking over their previous grounds). The lack of stadium debt has enabled Hull City to build their team year-on-year and now they are flourishing in the Premier. Unthinkable only 4 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 I think the Council is Conservative controlled? There's no way a Conservative council would spent council tax revenues on a white elephant like SMS - its (the Council's) supporters would be incandescent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 I think the Council is Conservative controlled? There's no way a Conservative council would spent council tax revenues on a white elephant like SMS - its (the Council's) supporters would be incandescent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Because every project in Southampton is built with private money. This is why many of the revolutionary visions (WOW factors) they have, either never get built or are nearly always downsized or abandoned half way through. Southampton has a multi-million pound art collection that never sees the light of day but they will never sell it to fund public projects. Hull city council built the KC Stadium (which cost more than SMS) with funds raised from selling off their own telecomunications company. They rent it to Hull City AFC and Hull FC Rugby League Club (although I believe both are shareholders of the holding company in exchange for the council taking over their previous grounds). The lack of stadium debt has enabled Hull City to build their team year-on-year and now they are flourishing in the Premier. Unthinkable only 4 years ago. Maybe it's time to lobby city councillors on this then? Pompey spent millions on the spinaker tower, surely it's time Southampton City Council made a statement and what better than doing something for SFC - a civic institution that means so much to so many? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Because every project in Southampton is built with private money. This is why many of the revolutionary visions (WOW factors) they have, either never get built or are nearly always downsized or abandoned half way through. Southampton has a multi-million pound art collection that never sees the light of day but they will never sell it to fund public projects. Hull city council built the KC Stadium (which cost more than SMS) with funds raised from selling off their own telecomunications company. They rent it to Hull City AFC and Hull FC Rugby League Club (although I believe both are shareholders of the holding company in exchange for the council taking over their previous grounds). The lack of stadium debt has enabled Hull City to build their team year-on-year and now they are flourishing in the Premier. Unthinkable only 4 years ago. Maybe it's time to lobby city councillors on this then? Pompey spent millions on the spinaker tower, surely it's time Southampton City Council made a statement and what better than doing something for SFC - a civic institution that means so much to so many? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLYMPIC Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Maybe it's time to lobby city councillors on this then? Pompey spent millions on the spinaker tower, surely it's time Southampton City Council made a statement and what better than doing something for SFC - a civic institution that means so much to so many? Even though Pompey council spent that money on the Spinaker tower it is an attraction that is visited by more than just people from Portsmouth.I just couldn't see Southampton council being able to push through any sort of finace deal for SFC the main reason being the people who would benefit from it would be in the minority,not everybody in the Soton area would careless if the club stayed or went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLYMPIC Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Maybe it's time to lobby city councillors on this then? Pompey spent millions on the spinaker tower, surely it's time Southampton City Council made a statement and what better than doing something for SFC - a civic institution that means so much to so many? Even though Pompey council spent that money on the Spinaker tower it is an attraction that is visited by more than just people from Portsmouth.I just couldn't see Southampton council being able to push through any sort of finace deal for SFC the main reason being the people who would benefit from it would be in the minority,not everybody in the Soton area would careless if the club stayed or went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Maybe it's time to lobby city councillors on this then? Pompey spent millions on the spinaker tower, surely it's time Southampton City Council made a statement and what better than doing something for SFC - a civic institution that means so much to so many? Anyone who thinks that Southampton city Council is in any way interested in Southampton Football club is deluded. IF the council wanted to help the club they'd cut the exorbitant rates.SCC has better things to do with it's money than bailing out a football club which is(directly) supported by about 9% of the city's populace. The other 91% are either armchair fans or don't give a toss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Maybe it's time to lobby city councillors on this then? Pompey spent millions on the spinaker tower, surely it's time Southampton City Council made a statement and what better than doing something for SFC - a civic institution that means so much to so many? Anyone who thinks that Southampton city Council is in any way interested in Southampton Football club is deluded. IF the council wanted to help the club they'd cut the exorbitant rates.SCC has better things to do with it's money than bailing out a football club which is(directly) supported by about 9% of the city's populace. The other 91% are either armchair fans or don't give a toss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 That's complete rubbish - would never happen. There will always be a football club in Southampton, St Mary's is completely worthless as anything other than a football stadium and there will always be at the very least 5-10,000 people who want to pay to watch football in Southampton. A football club is like property or any other investment - there will always be a buyer at the right price. Administration would not be good but at the very worst we would drop a league or two, have all our assets sold and have to rent the stadium. We portsmouth not in a similar situation to us a few years ago? They were sold for £1 to Mandric and now look where they are. All we need is Lowe, Wilde and Crouch to agree to sell for 33.3p each and we will be OK. Might be a non league side in a public park being watched by a few hundred people and a dog. I wouldn't be so sure we will survive administration there will be clubs disapear as has happened in the past I just hope we are not the first to have to start again from the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 That's complete rubbish - would never happen. There will always be a football club in Southampton, St Mary's is completely worthless as anything other than a football stadium and there will always be at the very least 5-10,000 people who want to pay to watch football in Southampton. A football club is like property or any other investment - there will always be a buyer at the right price. Administration would not be good but at the very worst we would drop a league or two, have all our assets sold and have to rent the stadium. We portsmouth not in a similar situation to us a few years ago? They were sold for £1 to Mandric and now look where they are. All we need is Lowe, Wilde and Crouch to agree to sell for 33.3p each and we will be OK. Might be a non league side in a public park being watched by a few hundred people and a dog. I wouldn't be so sure we will survive administration there will be clubs disapear as has happened in the past I just hope we are not the first to have to start again from the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkhamsted Saint Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 That's complete rubbish - would never happen. There will always be a football club in Southampton, St Mary's is completely worthless as anything other than a football stadium and there will always be at the very least 5-10,000 people who want to pay to watch football in Southampton. A football club is like property or any other investment - there will always be a buyer at the right price. Administration would not be good but at the very worst we would drop a league or two, have all our assets sold and have to rent the stadium. We portsmouth not in a similar situation to us a few years ago? They were sold for £1 to Mandric and now look where they are. All we need is Lowe, Wilde and Crouch to agree to sell for 33.3p each and we will be OK. You need to understand what is going on in the banking world at the moment and the impact the credit crunch will have on the economy. Agree it would never have happened 2 or 3 years ago but the world was a different place then. Very real chance of it happening now. Remain convinced that a couple of clubs will disappear over the next couple of years. Just hope and pray it isnt ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Please correct me if I am wrong, but is our situation not a bit more copmplicated since the football club is actuallyan assett of the PLC as is the stadium as SMS ltd? As I understood it teh PLC is the holding company for a number of fragmented companies such as the club, the stadium etc. I susupect however that its the football club that has the its debt/overdraft, SMS ltd has its loan and other subsidaries are either OK or have their own debts.... naturally, administration of any one part has an impact on another eg if the club was to fail, SMS ltd would loose its revenue that pays its loan? Is the PLC in debt or just the ltd companies it controls, anyone understand how this financial pie/mess is impacted on by teh financial processes? group structures like you mention are all very common and not a bit more complicated at all. worth understanding that whichever group company owns the stadium, the bank will likely have a charge over the consoldiated group's assets to cover the cost of the debt, no matter which group company they belong to. Therefore if one of the subsidiary companies were to be placed into administration by the bank, what would actually happen is that the group would be placed into administration. hope that clears it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 group structures like you mention are all very common and not a bit more complicated at all. worth understanding that whichever group company owns the stadium, the bank will likely have a charge over the consoldiated group's assets to cover the cost of the debt, no matter which group company they belong to. Therefore if one of the subsidiary companies were to be placed into administration by the bank, what would actually happen is that the group would be placed into administration. hope that clears it up Is that what's called Joint and Several Liability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 group structures like you mention are all very common and not a bit more complicated at all. worth understanding that whichever group company owns the stadium, the bank will likely have a charge over the consoldiated group's assets to cover the cost of the debt, no matter which group company they belong to. Therefore if one of the subsidiary companies were to be placed into administration by the bank, what would actually happen is that the group would be placed into administration. hope that clears it up Are you saying that if SLH goes into administration SFC as wholly owned, is automatically in administration? Or as a stand alone subsidiary could it be out of administration and be sold as such? Does SLH own the mortgaged SMS or does a subsidiary own it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Because every project in Southampton is built with private money. This is why many of the revolutionary visions (WOW factors) they have, either never get built or are nearly always downsized or abandoned half way through. Southampton has a multi-million pound art collection that never sees the light of day but they will never sell it to fund public projects. Hull city council built the KC Stadium (which cost more than SMS) with funds raised from selling off their own telecomunications company. They rent it to Hull City AFC and Hull FC Rugby League Club (although I believe both are shareholders of the holding company in exchange for the council taking over their previous grounds). The lack of stadium debt has enabled Hull City to build their team year-on-year and now they are flourishing in the Premier. Unthinkable only 4 years ago. but Southampton doesn't have a Kingston Communications of its own to float on the stock exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 If there isn't a creditors agreement and football debts aren't settled in full there are further points penalties to the initial 10. The following season further penalties ie Bournemouth 17 and wasn't it 37 at Luton? That could be in our case relegation to div 2. Luton were given extra for financial dealings and Boscombe for entering admin for the second time. In our case it would proberly be -15. The taxman is opposing all CVA's if football creditors are being paid in full. FA rules dictate Football creditors are paid in full, so the taxman will oppose every one. The only senerio where they are unable to do so, is if 75% (I think that's the figure) of creditors agree with the CVA. At every Club so far, the Taxman has been owed so much money, they easily have over 25% of the debt so can block any other agreements. Admin used to be an option for wiping the slate clean and starting again, it certainly isn't now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 but Southampton doesn't have a Kingston Communications of its own to float on the stock exchange. No, but it does have other assets that are gathering dust. The point I was making was that they always come up with big ideas. The Ice rink and Town arena come to mind, yet are never prepared to put any funding (despite spending millions in feasibility studies) into the projects therefore they are never built. If I remember correctly the city council promised Saints a 40,000 capacity stadium in the docks back in 1976. Just another pie in the sky idea!! Never mind! If Saints go to the wall there will be more room to build empty flats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Luton were given extra for financial dealings and Boscombe for entering admin for the second time. In our case it would proberly be -15. The taxman is opposing all CVA's if football creditors are being paid in full. FA rules dictate Football creditors are paid in full, so the taxman will oppose every one. The only senerio where they are unable to do so, is if 75% (I think that's the figure) of creditors agree with the CVA. At every Club so far, the Taxman has been owed so much money, they easily have over 25% of the debt so can block any other agreements. Admin used to be an option for wiping the slate clean and starting again, it certainly isn't now. So in fact it's not 75% of the creditors, its creditors representing 75% of the total debt.Not the same thing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 No, but it does have other assets that are gathering dust. The point I was making was that they always come up with big ideas. The Ice rink and Town arena come to mind, yet are never prepared to put any funding (despite spending millions in feasibility studies) into the projects therefore they are never built. If I remember correctly the city council promised Saints a 40,000 capacity stadium in the docks back in 1976. Just another pie in the sky idea!! Never mind! If Saints go to the wall there will be more room to build empty flats! As I recollect, Saints turned it down as they weren't going to get sole use. A municipal stadium with Saints playing as a tenant. If only! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 [quote=krissyboy31;93290 If I remember correctly the city council promised Saints a 40,000 capacity stadium in the docks back in 1976. Just another pie in the sky idea!! Must have needed votes to win the election. I don't remember that to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 So in fact it's not 75% of the creditors, its creditors representing 75% of the total debt.Not the same thing at all. Correct. As far as I'm aware, while we owe significant money to both Norwich Union and Barclays Bank, we have ensured that HMRC aren't on the wrong side of us so they would not play a part in any CVA negotiations. Whether NU and BB would accept a fraction of their owings as full and final settlement, only they would know. If they don't accept what's on offer, we would then be subject to the second points deduction as the Football League's solvency rules state that any team exiting administration must have a CVA agreed by creditors accounting for at least 75% of the total debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 I saw this a while back and it explains the subject quite well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7305998.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 So in fact it's not 75% of the creditors, its creditors representing 75% of the total debt.Not the same thing at all. Yes, that's right, I wrote it the wrong way round. I think I'm right in saying that in every case it's the taxman whose put the Clubs into admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 There is so much on this thread that makes sense, and I am encouraged to see that their are plenty of people who understand what administration could bring. Berkhamstead (where the hell is that place, never heard of it!) Saints sums up my feelings pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 Correct. As far as I'm aware, while we owe significant money to both Norwich Union and Barclays Bank, we have ensured that HMRC aren't on the wrong side of us so they would not play a part in any CVA negotiations. Whether NU and BB would accept a fraction of their owings as full and final settlement, only they would know. If they don't accept what's on offer, we would then be subject to the second points deduction as the Football League's solvency rules state that any team exiting administration must have a CVA agreed by creditors accounting for at least 75% of the total debt. Norwich Union is a secured creditor as far as I know, not sure that they come into any equation. They certainly aren't going to write down 70 or 80% of the outstanding debt. There is a vast difference between a mortgage and an unsecured loan.I think Barclay's is,at least in part, secured as well. I'd have to look up the last accounts though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkhamsted Saint Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 There is so much on this thread that makes sense, and I am encouraged to see that their are plenty of people who understand what administration could bring. Berkhamstead (where the hell is that place, never heard of it!) Saints sums up my feelings pretty well. Its 6 miles from Hemel Hempstead and about 15 miles from Watford in Hertfordshire and I am a season ticket holder and get to over half the away games. Member of Colslaw supporters group (Committee of Loyal Saints living around Watford) Theres about 50 of us up in the Northern Home Counties. All exiled Saints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 .I think Barclay's is,at least in part, secured as well. I'd have to look up the last accounts though. My understanding is that the extended over draft (when it went from 1 mill to 6 mill) was secured against the future installment payments of Walcott and Bale. Now those players have both been paid up in full and the overdraft is still at over 6 mill, so i am not sure what it is secured against now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 30 October, 2008 Share Posted 30 October, 2008 My understanding is that the extended over draft (when it went from 1 mill to 6 mill) was secured against the future installment payments of Walcott and Bale. Now those players have both been paid up in full and the overdraft is still at over 6 mill, so i am not sure what it is secured against now I don't know either, anyway it's not our problem is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 31 October, 2008 Share Posted 31 October, 2008 Correct. As far as I'm aware, while we owe significant money to both Norwich Union and Barclays Bank, we have ensured that HMRC aren't on the wrong side of us so they would not play a part in any CVA negotiations. Whether NU and BB would accept a fraction of their owings as full and final settlement, only they would know. If they don't accept what's on offer, we would then be subject to the second points deduction as the Football League's solvency rules state that any team exiting administration must have a CVA agreed by creditors accounting for at least 75% of the total debt. As the banks are the clubs main debt then surely the only outcome from administration would be the banks owning SMS, Staplewood, the farm etc and renting back what we need to continue as a club. I cannot see any logical reason why the banks would want to shut SFC down, SMS's only value is as a football stadium, it's just as much in the banks interest for SFC to be playing at the highest level possible - surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capel Saint Posted 31 October, 2008 Share Posted 31 October, 2008 As the banks are the clubs main debt then surely the only outcome from administration would be the banks owning SMS, Staplewood, the farm etc and renting back what we need to continue as a club. I cannot see any logical reason why the banks would want to shut SFC down, SMS's only value is as a football stadium, it's just as much in the banks interest for SFC to be playing at the highest level possible - surely? The bank probably wouldn't want to as they would lose their money. It is normally the taxman who puts clubs into administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 31 October, 2008 Share Posted 31 October, 2008 It is normally the taxman who puts clubs into administration. Yep, which makes me feel slightly better with the current situation because, to my knowledge, HMRC has no issues with us at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now