Administration model for us?

[hughieslastminutegoal]

I might have missed something, but I'm surprised no one has mentioned West Ham's holding company has gone into administration, and West Ham have not said this will lose them points.

 

Are we seeing a model for SLH/SFC here?

 

But maybe I heard wrong on the radio this morning .........

[VectisSaint]

Not heard this, but I don't think its up to West Ham whether they lose points or not, that would be a decision for the Premier League. We all know anyway that the PL sucks up to West Ham (is it coincidence tha Mr Brooking is west Ham through and through), just ask Sheff Utd. I believe that the rules for administration are different in the Premier League (FA) than the Football League anyway, so there would not be a precedent.

[bridge too far]

Here's the article from the Daily Telegraph:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/westham/3479812/West-Hams-future-in-doubt-after-holding-company-Hansa-goes-into-administration.html

[stevegrant]

I'm struggling to think of any occasion where a top-flight team has gone into administration, so as you say there's no precedent. However, I'd be very surprised if the standard 10-point admin entry penalty wasn't applied to the Premier League. With the amount of money floating around in that league, it really takes a hell of a lot of financial mismanagement for them to be forced into administration. In terms of the link between football club and holding company, I don't see any way that West Ham would be able to claim that the debt of the holding company ISN'T linked to the football club.

 

I haven't heard anything about it actually happening to West Ham, and if it did I would have expected it to come after the January transfer window and their inevitable fire sale.

[SaintDonkey]

It sounds like a nice legal loophole - but I'm guessing the relationship between SLH and Saints would have to be restructured for us to take advantage of it, and Mr Barclays might have a thing or two to say about that!

[hughieslastminutegoal]

I'm struggling to think of any occasion where a top-flight team has gone into administration, so as you say there's no precedent. However, I'd be very surprised if the standard 10-point admin entry penalty wasn't applied to the Premier League. With the amount of money floating around in that league, it really takes a hell of a lot of financial mismanagement for them to be forced into administration. In terms of the link between football club and holding company, I don't see any way that West Ham would be able to claim that the debt of the holding company ISN'T linked to the football club.

 

I haven't heard anything about it actually happening to West Ham, and if it did I would have expected it to come after the January transfer window and their inevitable fire sale.

 

The article included the following:

 

"West Ham United plc are regarded as the member organisation by the Premier League, meaning that the possibility of a sporting sanction against the team, such as the deduction of points, could not be considered in respect of any financial issues relating to the holding company."

 

So as far as Saints are concerned (and accepting that the championship and Premiere League may be different), who is regarded as the 'member organisation'?

[stevegrant]

The article included the following:

 

"West Ham United plc are regarded as the member organisation by the Premier League, meaning that the possibility of a sporting sanction against the team, such as the deduction of points, could not be considered in respect of any financial issues relating to the holding company."

 

So as far as Saints are concerned (and accepting that the championship and Premiere League may be different), who is regarded as the 'member organisation'?

Well the main reason for having two separate boards (i.e. SLH plc and SFC Ltd) was because of an FA/PL rule that the football club itself had to have its own board, and that chairman would attend meetings etc.

 

Southampton Football Club Limited is the member organisation as far as the Football League are concerned. However, I would take the comment in that article with a mountain of salt - I really can't envisage the relevant governing bodies (PL in WHU's case and FL in ours) accepting that the debt accrued by the holding company isn't directly linked to the football club.

[Roman]

A much better model might be Hull City, as described in the Guardian this morning. The parallels and differences are for you to draw. Interesting, nonetheless.

 

In February 2001, Hull city went into administration, with an unpopular (and this time actually criminal) owner. The debts of the club were small by our standards - £1.8m.

 

Adam Pearson (no relation!) , the commercial director at Leeds United, spotted an opportunity, and bought the club out of admin for £360,000. With the backing of a local internet millionaire, he saw ‘massive latent potential’ in the club.

 

The council, which had just had a windfall from the sale of its own communications company, decided to build the KC stadium, at its expense, for the football and rugby league clubs.

 

Their first game against Hartlepool in League 2, attracted 22,000.

 

The club, under Peter Taylor, won promotion in 2004 and 2005, but faltered in the CCC, because, as Pearson says, the ‘economics of the division are awful.’

 

So they attracted a new consortium of three businessmen, which bought the club for £13m. They then decided to invest £6m over three years into the team to try and win a place in the Prem. That, together with a bit of luck and forward-thinking in appointing Phil Brown as manager, was what got them there.

 

Right now, Hull are debt-free. Possibly the ONLY club in the Prem that can claim that. What better position to be in than that in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression?

 

The lesson to be learned from this? Leadership. Visionary, clear-headed, committed leadership. (oh, and with a bit of luck and a friendly council.)

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/nov/19/premierleague-hullcity

Edited 19 November, 2008 by Roman

[Sheff Saint]

A much better model might be Hull City, as described in the Guardian this morning. The parallels and differences are for you to draw. Interesting, nonetheless.

 

In February 2001, Hull city went into administration, with an unpopular (and this time actually criminal) owner. The debts of the club were small by our standards - £1.8m.

 

Adam Pearson (no relation!) , the commercial director at Leeds United, spotted an opportunity, and bought the club out of admin for £360,000. With the backing of a local internet millionaire, he saw ‘massive latent potential’ in the club.

 

The council, which had just had a windfall from the sale of its own communications company, decided to build the KC stadium, at its expense, for the football and rugby league clubs.

 

Their first game against Hartlepool in League 2, attracted 22,000.

 

The club, under Peter Taylor, won promotion in 2004 and 2005, but faltered in the CCC, because, as Pearson says, the ‘economics of the division are awful.’

 

So they attracted a new consortium of three businessmen, which bought the club for £13m. They then decided to invest £6 over three years into the team to try and win a place in the Prem. That, together with a bit of luck and forward-thinking in appointing Phil Brown as manager, was what got them there.

 

Right now, Hull are debt-free. Possibly the ONLY club in the Prem that can claim that. What better position to be in than that in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression?

 

The lesson to be learned from this? Leadership. Visionary, clear-headed, committed leadership. (oh, and with a bit of luck and a friendly council.)

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/nov/19/premierleague-hullcity

 

You left off the fact they didn't appoint some random manager from the Dutch semi-professional league and get a load of average 18 year olds in the first team.

 

I'm surprised Hull succeded with such a revolutionary approach.

[treggs23]

'So they attracted a new consortium of three businessmen, which bought the club for £13m. They then decided to invest £6 over three years into the team to try and win a place in the Prem. That, together with a bit of luck and forward-thinking in appointing Phil Brown as manager, was what got them there.'

 

That's only £2 a year - even Rupert could afford that surely??

[Graffito]

A much better model might be Hull City, as described in the Guardian this morning. The parallels and differences are for you to draw. Interesting, nonetheless.

 

In February 2001, Hull city went into administration, with an unpopular (and this time actually criminal) owner. The debts of the club were small by our standards - £1.8m.

 

Adam Pearson (no relation!) , the commercial director at Leeds United, spotted an opportunity, and bought the club out of admin for £360,000. With the backing of a local internet millionaire, he saw ‘massive latent potential’ in the club.

 

The council, which had just had a windfall from the sale of its own communications company, decided to build the KC stadium, at its expense, for the football and rugby league clubs.

 

Their first game against Hartlepool in League 2, attracted 22,000.

 

The club, under Peter Taylor, won promotion in 2004 and 2005, but faltered in the CCC, because, as Pearson says, the ‘economics of the division are awful.’

 

So they attracted a new consortium of three businessmen, which bought the club for £13m. They then decided to invest £6 over three years into the team to try and win a place in the Prem. That, together with a bit of luck and forward-thinking in appointing Phil Brown as manager, was what got them there.

 

Right now, Hull are debt-free. Possibly the ONLY club in the Prem that can claim that. What better position to be in than that in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression?

 

The lesson to be learned from this? Leadership. Visionary, clear-headed, committed leadership. (oh, and with a bit of luck and a friendly council.)

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/nov/19/premierleague-hullcity

 

They may have benefited from leadership but the foundation of their success is the new ground which the Council paid for by selling part of it's telephone company, leaving the club debt free.

 

This article, together with one published by the Guardian last week containing an interview with Keith Harris are required reading for understanding the context in which Saints have been operating these last few years, one in which sound leadership is at a premium but is no guarantor of success given the skewed economics of football.

[Sheff Saint]

They may have benefited from leadership but the foundation of their success is the new ground which the Council paid for by selling part of it's telephone company, leaving the club debt free.

 

This article, together with one published by the Guardian last week containing an interview with Keith Harris are required reading for understanding the context in which Saints have been operating these last few years, one in which sound leadership is at a premium but is no guarantor of success given the skewed economics of football.

 

To be fair, despite my cynical post above you're on to something here.

 

The figures show, not just the skewed economics, but the skewed luck.

 

We invested half that amount in GBs team. It was a similar 'gamble' to Hull. They got a bit of luck though and kept going up. We failed and now paying the price of that. It would be intresting to see what would have happened if Hull had got stuck in League 1 for a few years?

 

I suppose my frustration now is that we are not helping ourselves as much as we could with our current path.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

They may have benefited from leadership but the foundation of their success is the new ground which the Council paid for by selling part of it's telephone company, leaving the club debt free.

 

 

Exactly - that's why RL could be looking at a way of getting the ground ownership sufficiently far away from the club, though subject to a club tenancy of it. Then, just perhaps, the ground holding co. could be put into administration at the appropriate time, leaving the football club 'ok' (relatively speaking).

[eelpie]

It sounds like a nice legal loophole - but I'm guessing the relationship between SLH and Saints would have to be restructured for us to take advantage of it, and Mr Barclays might have a thing or two to say about that!

 

Is the stadium mortgage with SFC or SLH? What is Norwich Union's involvement?

[Window Cleaner]

Is the stadium mortgage with SFC or SLH? What is Norwich Union's involvement?

 

Without a doubt the mortgage is with St Mary's Stadium Ltd.

[SW5 SAINT]

I'm struggling to think of any occasion where a top-flight team has gone into administration, so as you say there's no precedent. However, I'd be very surprised if the standard 10-point admin entry penalty wasn't applied to the Premier League. With the amount of money floating around in that league, it really takes a hell of a lot of financial mismanagement for them to be forced into administration. In terms of the link between football club and holding company, I don't see any way that West Ham would be able to claim that the debt of the holding company ISN'T linked to the football club.

 

I haven't heard anything about it actually happening to West Ham, and if it did I would have expected it to come after the January transfer window and their inevitable fire sale.

 

Surely any administrators if unable to sell( Tevezgate) WHam as a whole, would be bound to be looking at any assets ( i.e. players, ground) to flog separately to raise cash. WHam might be worth more piecemeal. So that would have to have an impact on the integrity of the PL