Do the shareholders get a say?

[hamster]

Just wanted to know where the small shareholders stand now that we are in admin.

Is that it for them, finito?

[Viking Warrior]

Hamster

 

I was wondering about that. as a small shareholder , I thought I would have had a letter from the administrators explaining everything to me.

 

For those who understand these matters will all shareholders be written to or even asked to consider giving more money to SLH as suggested by LC?

[dubai_phil]

Hamster

 

I was wondering about that. as a small shareholder , I thought I would have had a letter from the administrators explaining everything to me.

 

For those who understand these matters will all shareholders be written to or even asked to consider giving more money to SLH as suggested by LC?

 

Luckily, as most small shareholders are also registered on the SMS database and at some point have made purchases using credit cards, you can all rest assured that if the administrator is unsuccessful in finding a buyer he can happily max out your credit cards to pay off Barclays without any of you needing to worry about pressing any buttons

 

Oh don't worry, it won't happen before a Friday

 

 

 

allegedly

[hamster]

Luckily, as most small shareholders are also registered on the SMS database and at some point have made purchases using credit cards, you can all rest assured that if the administrator is unsuccessful in finding a buyer he can happily max out your credit cards to pay off Barclays without any of you needing to worry about pressing any buttons

 

Oh don't worry, it won't happen before a Friday

 

 

 

allegedly

 

Are you being serious there phil?

 

I am sure a deal will be struck eventually. The fans, local businesses and most importantly imo, the council will pay the bills don't you worry about that.

[SaintBobby]

Are you being serious there phil?

 

I am sure a deal will be struck eventually. The fans, local businesses and most importantly imo, the council will pay the bills don't you worry about that.

 

The shareholders are nowhere.

 

The company is in administration. That means the board - elected by the shareholders - have conceded that the company is no longer a going concern.

 

It is Mr. Fry's job to now dispose of the assets of SLH. One of these assets is Southampton Football Club. If he finds a buyer who is willing to buy SFC for £100m+, you may get some cash.

 

More likely, someone will buy the club for £0.01 on the understanding that they shoulder the club's debt. In this scenario, your shares are literally not worth the paper they are printed on.

[lordswoodsaints]

All I can say is don't bother buying any bogroll this week:-)

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I only had two small shareholdings - HBOS & SLH :smt107 - By the way anybody in need of astute financial advice should just contact me at my new address :

 

Chapel End Charlie

Mug Street

Foolchester

BR0 0KE

[jonah]

Sadly shareholders are at the very bottom of the pile and will probably get nothing. There is a very small chance that the whole deal will be resolved by selling the existing shares, but given the debts and the pecking order in these circumstances I think it's unlikely.

 

The administrators are working for the benefit of secured creditors with fixed charges registered against the company. So first come those secured creditors with a fixed-charge, then the administrators themselves, then preferred secured creditors, floating-charge secured creditors, then unsecured creditors and finally shareholders.

 

I assume Aviva have a fixed charge registered against SLH at Companies House so are at the top. I would have thought Barclays are unsecured and near the bottom (and let's hope they don't get a penny if shareholders don't!). Employees are "preferred creditors" in relation to pay and pensions for the 4 months prior to the administration order I think. That's off the top of my head, could be wrong but that's how I remember it.

 

Oh, one other thing - whatever the administrators do has to be agreed by the secured creditors as far as I'm aware. So it looks like Aviva are now holding the trump cards, which just makes Barclays decisions look a bit stupid if they are unsecured!

[eurosaint]

Sadly shareholders are at the very bottom of the pile and will probably get nothing. There is a very small chance that the whole deal will be resolved by selling the existing shares, but given the debts and the pecking order in these circumstances I think it's unlikely.

 

The administrators are working for the benefit of secured creditors with fixed charges registered against the company. So first come those secured creditors with a fixed-charge, then the administrators themselves, then preferred secured creditors, floating-charge secured creditors, then unsecured creditors and finally shareholders.

 

I assume Aviva have a fixed charge registered against SLH at Companies House so are at the top. I would have thought Barclays are unsecured and near the bottom (and let's hope they don't get a penny if shareholders don't!). Employees are "preferred creditors" in relation to pay and pensions for the 4 months prior to the administration order I think. That's off the top of my head, could be wrong but that's how I remember it.

 

Oh, one other thing - whatever the administrators do has to be agreed by the secured creditors as far as I'm aware. So it looks like Aviva are now holding the trump cards, which just makes Barclays decisions look a bit stupid if they are unsecured!

 

I don't suppose Rupert's mates will be very happy with him now, eh ?

[jonah]

I don't suppose Rupert's mates will be very happy with him now, eh ?

 

I think the more intelligent shareholders realised the mess the club was in last summer and that this was an attempt to rescue us from that. I suspect they are more upset with why we had a £6.3m overdraft when we had just lost the parachute payments, no?

[trousers]

I only had two small shareholdings - HBOS & SLH :smt107 - By the way anybody in need of astute financial advice should just contact me at my new address :

 

Chapel End Charlie

Mug Street

Foolchester

BR0 0KE

 

Did you not follow the myriad of 'Sharewatch' threads on here over the last 9 months?

 

It would appear mine and Bridge Too Far's talents are wasted on here...

[Clapham Saint]

Sadly shareholders are at the very bottom of the pile and will probably get nothing. There is a very small chance that the whole deal will be resolved by selling the existing shares, but given the debts and the pecking order in these circumstances I think it's unlikely.

 

The administrators are working for the benefit of secured creditors with fixed charges registered against the company. So first come those secured creditors with a fixed-charge, then the administrators themselves, then preferred secured creditors, floating-charge secured creditors, then unsecured creditors and finally shareholders.

 

I assume Aviva have a fixed charge registered against SLH at Companies House so are at the top. I would have thought Barclays are unsecured and near the bottom (and let's hope they don't get a penny if shareholders don't!). Employees are "preferred creditors" in relation to pay and pensions for the 4 months prior to the administration order I think. That's off the top of my head, could be wrong but that's how I remember it.

 

Oh, one other thing - whatever the administrators do has to be agreed by the secured creditors as far as I'm aware. So it looks like Aviva are now holding the trump cards, which just makes Barclays decisions look a bit stupid if they are unsecured!

 

Pretty much spot on.

 

Aviva will get the proceeds from any sale of the stadium.

 

Which of Barclays and Aviva get the bulk of the proceeds from the sale of the shares of Southampton Football Club Limited will depend on the ranking and nature of their debentures.

 

Employees claims are preferential for:

1) All accrued but untaken holiday (which is then paid)

2) arrears of wages in the last four months, but this is capped at £800 per employee.

 

Employees are then unsecured creditors for everything else including things like:

1) Any further arrears of wages,

2) Redundnacy pay

3) Pay in lieu of notice.

 

HTH

 

[EDIT: the one other thing is that technially the administrator is working for ALL creditors rather than just the secureds. However in the real world, there is unlikely to be much to distribute to the unsecured creditors]

Edited 9 April, 2009 by Clapham Saint

[Gemmel]

Pretty much spot on.

 

Aviva will get the proceeds from any sale of the stadium.

 

Which of Barclays and Aviva get the bulk of the proceeds from the sale of the shares of Southampton Football Club Limited will depend on the ranking and nature of their debentures.

 

Employees claims are preferential for:

1) All accrued but untaken holiday (which is then paid)

2) arrears of wages in the last four months, but this is capped at £800 per employee.

 

Employees are then unsecured creditors for everything else including things like:

1) Any further arrears of wages,

2) Redundnacy pay

3) Pay in lieu of notice.

 

HTH

 

[EDIT: the one other thing is that technially the administrator is working for ALL creditors rather than just the secureds. However in the real world, there is unlikely to be much to distribute to the unsecured creditors]

 

Hi Clapham.....whilst your on line. What do you make of the number if enquires about the club? Will it end up being a hinderance to have so many? What will administrator be doing now so sort out the serious players from the jokers? From what little we know, do you think we are well placed to get through all of this?

Cheers

[solentstars]

I think the more intelligent shareholders realised the mess the club was in last summer and that this was an attempt to rescue us from that. I suspect they are more upset with why we had a £6.3m overdraft when we had just lost the parachute payments, no?

thats because we had some village idiots in charge of the finances which has led us to admin and a firesale of players and high wage earners.

[Clapham Saint]

Hi Clapham.....whilst your on line. What do you make of the number if enquires about the club? Will it end up being a hinderance to have so many? What will administrator be doing now so sort out the serious players from the jokers? From what little we know, do you think we are well placed to get through all of this?

Cheers

 

The more enquiries then better.

 

As a general rule you can get a feel fairly early on as to whether an interested party is a serious option or not. This will be from anything from knowing about their background to the level of professional advise that they have taken so far (i.e. somebody that shows up having clearly made a serious start on business plans and likely legal issues stands out above the bloke that turns up on his own clearly not having a clue what he is doing).

 

The other key thing that sorts the wheat from the chaff (as it were) is asking for proof of funds. This could be anything from a letter from a bank/High net worth individual stating that they have agreed in principal to fund the deal to a bank statement showing funds in an account to whatever.

 

The administrator won't waste much time dealing with people who don't appear to have the means to follow through on any deal that is agreed, it just wastes time (and money) that could be spent dealing with the more serious bidders.

 

 

As to whether we'll manage to get a deal...

 

I would hope so. At the end of the day, in the doomsday scenario where we don't get a sale and SFC ceases to be:

 

1) Aviva will take a HUGE write off on the stadium. Due to the poor, housing/commercial property market and the proximity of the gas works the stadium is of virtually no value to anybody else and would be sold for penuts.

 

2) The training ground/jackson's farm will be sold off to the highest bidder. Most likely a developer. Again I wouldn't have thought that the realisations would be very impressive.

 

3) I'm not sure about the status of the players contracts/registrations. If the club is liquidated in theory these would be sold off. However as we are talking about people rather than (say) bits of furniture I'm not sure now this would work out. The players might all just be released on frees when their wages weren't paid.

 

Again this would mean very little money making its way back to either Aviva or Barclays.

 

Given that the above, any offer that provides a better return would be taken (after the usual haggling obviously). I'd like to think that would happen.

 

If I had to put money on it I would go with us finding a buyer. Whether or not that buyer is able to secure the funds to invest in a new team and manager or not though is harder to guess.

 

Sadly we're going to have to wait and see.

 

Edit for moronic spelling

Edited 9 April, 2009 by Clapham Saint

[jonah]

Thanks for clarifying Clapham Saint - am I right in thinking that they will also pay interest on the creditors debts before they pay any remaining money to shareholders? ie. the longer it drags on the more money is "lost" for shareholders?

[um pahars]

Pretty much spot on.

 

Aviva will get the proceeds from any sale of the stadium.

 

Which of Barclays and Aviva get the bulk of the proceeds from the sale of the shares of Southampton Football Club Limited will depend on the ranking and nature of their debentures.

 

Employees claims are preferential for:

1) All accrued but untaken holiday (which is then paid)

2) arrears of wages in the last four months, but this is capped at £800 per employee.

 

Employees are then unsecured creditors for everything else including things like:

1) Any further arrears of wages,

2) Redundnacy pay

3) Pay in lieu of notice.

 

HTH

 

[EDIT: the one other thing is that technially the administrator is working for ALL creditors rather than just the secureds. However in the real world, there is unlikely to be much to distribute to the unsecured creditors]

 

 

Have you got an equivalent of this easy guide to administration that you could put up here????

 

A mate sent this to me last week and it helped outline a few details (but also left a few questions unanaswered!!!).

 

http://www.linklaters.com/pdfs/publications/banking/Guidetoadministration.pdf

[Clapham Saint]

Thanks for clarifying Clapham Saint - am I right in thinking that they will also pay interest on the creditors debts before they pay any remaining money to shareholders? ie. the longer it drags on the more money is "lost" for shareholders?

 

I'm afraid, as with most things insolvency, it depends...

 

I think that we can safely say though that interest on either bank, or other creditor balances is going to be irelevant. Absolutely nobody (creditor wise) is going to be paid in full on the amounts before interest let alone after and so shareholders become irrelevant.

[Clapham Saint]

Have you got an equivalent of this easy guide to administration that you could put up here????

 

A mate sent this to me last week and it helped outline a few details (but also left a few questions unanaswered!!!).

 

http://www.linklaters.com/pdfs/publications/banking/Guidetoadministration.pdf

 

That pdf looks fairly good.

 

If you let me know what you wanted clarification on I'll see if I can dig up something suitable.