Too many consortiums for Mr Fry (and us)?

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

[Wade Garrett]

Don't worry too much about the number of potential suitors too much Duncan - most of them are probably Lifelongsaint wannabees.

 

Can't see how we could be bought and sold on for profit either. We will be playing in the third division next season, and if the next lot are the same as the last lot, then attendances will reflect that. To sell for a profit they would need a successful team, and decent attendances.

 

The wrong owners next time around could really kill the club for good.

[Red and White Army]

All those idiots who thought administration would be a good thing for our club probably didn't consider that the role of the administrator is to provide the maximum compensation for the clubs creditors. That could be by disbanding the club, selling the stadium and giving them all 20p in the pound towards their claims.

 

Fortunately, I think we have to be worth more as a going concern with the potential for future profitability as our breakup value is tiny compared to our debt - but I don't think we can rule this out.

 

I really can't see anyone offering up 12-18 million quid to settle all debts though - that is just wishful thinking and woolly headed nonsense. In reality I expect the successful bidders to be putting up less than 1-5 million quid to reduce the overdraft, pay down some outstanding debts and renegotiate the stadium financing.

[hypochondriac]

We shall find out in time and it's not like we have a choice. Whatever happens I am confident we will end up with a group of people who are prepared to invest a bit in the team. No fact for that just my personal opinion.

[John B]

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

 

Yes that is the way I think too.

 

 

Option B may even sell our best players to recoup their outlay and Option A would not

[hypochondriac]

All those idiots who thought administration would be a good thing for our club probably didn't consider that the role of the administrator is to provide the maximum compensation for the clubs creditors. That could be by disbanding the club, selling the stadium and giving them all 20p in the pound towards their claims.

 

Fortunately, I think we have to be worth more as a going concern with the potential for future profitability as our breakup value is tiny compared to our debt - but I don't think we can rule this out.

 

I really can't see anyone offering up 12-18 million quid to settle all debts though - that is just wishful thinking and woolly headed nonsense. In reality I expect the successful bidders to be putting up less than 1-5 million quid to reduce the overdraft, pay down some outstanding debts and renegotiate the stadium financing.

 

We shall see but seeing as we do not know the identity of the bidders I think it is a bit early to call it woolly headed nonsense. If we have a billionaire looking for example that sort of money is pocket change to them.

[hypochondriac]

Yes that is the way I think too.

 

 

Option B may even sell our best players to recoup their outlay and Option A would not

 

But if that happened and they sold all the players they would get no support. If they bought the club for say 18 million ho on earth would they manage to make a profit on that?

[saint_mears]

I suspect looking at other clubs it does not come down to just paying off the creditors. The admin take a keen interest in getting the right offer for all parties i would suggest. Certainly there seems to be experience with Mark Fry and football and other consultants that have come in for admin.

 

the figure of 35 will in reality be less than 10 after its shown they are all talk.

[SaintRobbie]

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

 

Duncan - this is exactly what I mean when I have been typing that it would be nice for Mr Fry to announce that he will consider the best offer for the Club rather than the Bank per se.

 

Can't see him doing that - but some reassurance is needed.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Don't worry too much about the number of potential suitors too much Duncan - most of them are probably Lifelongsaint wannabees.

 

Can't see how we could be bought and sold on for profit either. We will be playing in the third division next season, and if the next lot are the same as the last lot, then attendances will reflect that. To sell for a profit they would need a successful team, and decent attendances.

 

The wrong owners next time around could really kill the club for good.

 

The frightening thing is I hear that "Lifelong" is still very "active" and is almost certainly wrapped up in at least one of the consortiums. This sort of thing is why I remain anxious that Fry makes the "right" decision.

[Legod Third Coming]

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

 

 

Duncan, how the hell (no disrespect) do Consortium B make a return??

 

This is not ebay where if you chance your arm you can buy and sell for a margin...

[hypochondriac]

Duncan, how the hell (no disrespect) do Consortium B make a return??

 

This is not ebay where if you chance your arm you can buy and sell for a margin...

 

That's my point. Surely they would have to improve the fortunes of the club and then sell for a profit. How would they get their money back any other way?

[bridge too far]

The frightening thing is I hear that "Lifelong" is still very "active" and is almost certainly wrapped up in at least one of the consortiums. This sort of thing is why I remain anxious that Fry makes the "right" decision.

 

This news scares me too.

 

Surely Mr Fry would look at LLS's past 'endeavours' and realise that he's not very good at this sort of thing (c*ck up at Bournemouth springs to mind) and not take him seriously?

 

I do hope so.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

 

Your summary FF is exactly as I see the situation and as i said on another thread - what is good for the goose is not necessarily going to be good for the gander. The creditors will be motivated by money and repayment in full and will go for the highest bid presumably if the available funds are proven which I assume Fry and his team will do all the due diligence.

 

Many warned about that Administration was a very risky proposition not least Clapham Saint who works in the industry and was very erudite in explaining our options should the worse happen. His post didn't make good reading back then and even less so now but there seems to be very little we can do about it.

 

I would counter though that if your known consortium A contains ex- board directors, club managers etc it maybe best there interest is outbid. No point IMO going through this massive risk to end up with a individuals who helped create the mess in the first place no matter how big or small their contribution. Can you confirm if the consortium you are aware of is completely made up 100% of new blood and with no links to the past, i.e a new representative being bankrolled by a past director?

 

We really need a clean sweep if we have any hope of uniting the fanbase regardless of how popular some may view certain individuals of a consortium bid. Many hold different and equally valid opinions and the division can only stop if we start with a completely clean page and no eraser marks.

[twopintsnilnil]

In our current position why would consortium B be a bad thing? As much as we'd like to see owners with a love of the club in charge, if the main driver for an owner is to turn a profit then that would mean raising the value of the club, and ultimately that can only be achieved through success on the pitch. That success may only need to be moderate - survival and mid-table establishment will do for a start - and then they may decide to cash in. At that point Consortium A perhaps starts to look more attractive. As much as I blame him for the current situation, Lowe's understanding that the club would only ever progress with a big injection of business acumen was correct - it's just that he couldn't provide or delegate the market knowledge and recruitment skills needed to appoint an appropriate manager after Strachan.

 

B for 3-5 years, followed by an A for me.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Duncan, how the hell (no disrespect) do Consortium B make a return??

 

This is not ebay where if you chance your arm you can buy and sell for a margin...

 

OK Legod, perhaps not an immediate return, but as someone has said further up the thread, the price could be a lot lower than £18m - and picking up a stadium, Staplewood, Jacksons Farm, the Academy Lodge and some saleable players for, say half that, could well tempt someone who intentions were short term and shallow as far as SFC were concerned.

[Barry Horne]

The frightening thing is I hear that "Lifelong" is still very "active" and is almost certainly wrapped up in at least one of the consortiums. This sort of thing is why I remain anxious that Fry makes the "right" decision.

 

I take it Lifelong's not a member of the consortium you prefer then?! Seriously, if he couldn't get his foot in the door at Bournemouth it's not going to happen here. (Please God). Surely the key to the administrator making the right choice does rely at least in part on wanting the best for the future of the club. If that were not the case, why have we gone down this path of trying to keep it separate from SLH?

[John B]

But if that happened and they sold all the players they would get no support. If they bought the club for say 18 million ho on earth would they manage to make a profit on that?

 

They would get some support no matter.

 

But my point is that offer accepted by the administrator may not be the best offer for SFC fans

 

Who knows what the ticket pricing strategy for each consortium will be

[hypochondriac]

They would get some support no matter.

 

But my point is that offer accepted by the administrator may not be the best offer for SFC fans

 

People had their fingers burnt after Wilde. No one will be supporting them if they sold off all the players and made it clear that they couldn't give a toss about the fans.

[Legod Third Coming]

Your summary FF is exactly as I see the situation and as i said on another thread - what is good for the goose is not necessarily going to be good for the gander. The creditors will be motivated by money and repayment in full and will go for the highest bid presumably if the available funds are proven which I assume Fry and his team will do all the due diligence.

 

Many warned about that Administration was a very risky proposition not least Clapham Saint who works in the industry and was very erudite in explaining our options should the worse happen. His post didn't make good reading back then and even less so now but there seems to be very little we can do about it.

 

I would counter though that if your known consortium A contains ex- board directors, club managers etc it maybe best there interest is outbid. No point IMO going through this massive risk to end up with a individuals who helped create the mess in the first place no matter how big or small their contribution. Can you confirm if the consortium you are aware of is completely made up 100% of new blood and with no links to the past, i.e a new representative being bankrolled by a past director?

 

We really need a clean sweep if we have any hope of uniting the fanbase regardless of how popular some may view certain individuals of a consortium bid. Many hold different and equally valid opinions and the division can only stop if we start with a completely clean page and no eraser marks.

 

 

I agree. Derby (eventually) beneffitted from their Administration much as (let us hope) it could (in 3-5 years) be good for us. But only with a new team who:

 

understand football

embrace the fans

unite the club

 

That they are erudite, successful and skilled business people is taken as read.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Your summary FF is exactly as I see the situation and as i said on another thread - what is good for the goose is not necessarily going to be good for the gander. The creditors will be motivated by money and repayment in full and will go for the highest bid presumably if the available funds are proven which I assume Fry and his team will do all the due diligence.

 

Many warned about that Administration was a very risky proposition not least Clapham Saint who works in the industry and was very erudite in explaining our options should the worse happen. His post didn't make good reading back then and even less so now but there seems to be very little we can do about it.

 

I would counter though that if your known consortium A contains ex- board directors, club managers etc it maybe best there interest is outbid. No point IMO going through this massive risk to end up with a individuals who helped create the mess in the first place no matter how big or small their contribution. Can you confirm if the consortium you are aware of is completely made up 100% of new blood and with no links to the past, i.e a new representative being bankrolled by a past director?

 

We really need a clean sweep if we have any hope of uniting the fanbase regardless of how popular some may view certain individuals of a consortium bid. Many hold different and equally valid opinions and the division can only stop if we start with a completely clean page and no eraser marks.

 

19C, you can rest assured the one consortium I was referring to does not (to the best of my current knowledge) include anyone who has previously been a director of either the PLC or Football Board.

[Rational Rich]

Duncan - this is exactly what I mean when I have been typing that it would be nice for Mr Fry to announce that he will consider the best offer for the Club rather than the Bank per se.

 

Can't see him doing that - but some reassurance is needed.

 

If he did the best thing for the club/fans which was not the best thing for the creditors of SLH, he would be breaching his legal duty. Therefore, it is unlikely that he will ever say this, unless his duty to the creditors can be aligned with what you consider the best interests of the club.

[alpine_saint]

All those idiots who thought administration would be a good thing for our club probably didn't consider that the role of the administrator is to provide the maximum compensation for the clubs creditors. That could be by disbanding the club, selling the stadium and giving them all 20p in the pound towards their claims.

 

Fortunately, I think we have to be worth more as a going concern with the potential for future profitability as our breakup value is tiny compared to our debt - but I don't think we can rule this out.

 

 

What a stupid post.

 

If you believe the second paragraph, why whinge in the first paragraph ?

 

Is it not also likely that some of us "idiots" had the foresight to conclude the second paragraph MONTHS before you did ?

[dubai_phil]

.....................

We really need a clean sweep if we have any hope of uniting the fanbase regardless of how popular some may view certain individuals of a consortium bid. Many hold different and equally valid opinions and the division can only stop if we start with a completely clean page and no eraser marks.

 

Absolutely agree with this last piece

 

UNLESS the choice is a continuation of the nightmare vs total extinction

 

In which case they have to be given support.

 

My analysis on this - some of the "hangers on" types thought they had this all worked out and are now scared sh*tless that a big gamble may be about to blow up in their faces because so many possible bidders have popped out the woodwork

[dubai_phil]

19C, you can rest assured the one consortium I was referring to does not (to the best of my current knowledge) include anyone who has previously been a director of either the PLC or Football Board.

 

but that doesn't preclude their mates of course...........

 

maybe

[trousers]

Thought: Won't most of the creditors, whom Begbies Traynor are there to protect, want both: (a) protection from outstanding debts and (b) the prospect of continuing to do business with the club in the future?

 

So, for the Administrator to ONLY look at protecting the 'here and now' revenue of creditors by choosing the 'make a quick buck' suitor would be short sighted and doing a disservice to the very people they are deployed to protect?

 

For example, if I run the company who prints the match day programmes, I will want a resolution that (a) makes sure I'm paid for all the programmes I have printed over the last quarter and not yet been paid for and (b) means that I can continue to print programmes in the future because the club is in long term safe hands.

 

So, long winded way of saying that I agree with your concerns Duncan but would be surprised (aka naive ?!) if Mr Fry is only thinking of the creditors in the past and present tenses without considering that these very people he is protecting have a living to make going forward.

[Legod Third Coming]

Absolutely agree with this last piece

 

UNLESS the choice is a continuation of the nightmare vs total extinction

 

In which case they have to be given support.

 

My analysis on this - some of the "hangers on" types thought they had this all worked out and are now scared sh*tless that a big gamble may be about to blow up in their faces because so many possible bidders have popped out the woodwork

 

 

Interesting analysis Phil - and probably not a million miles away from the reality.

 

On the one hand who can blame those who sat on their hands and waited. On the other, they could have shown earlier and due diligence would have proven the precarious nature of the club which might have expedited a quick, clean and cheap sale.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Duncan - this is exactly what I mean when I have been typing that it would be nice for Mr Fry to announce that he will consider the best offer for the Club rather than the Bank per se.

 

Can't see him doing that - but some reassurance is needed.

 

Robbie you really make me laugh and cry in equal measure. You got your cake and now you want to it, well time to wake up and smell the coffee all our rights went out the window when Fry and Co walked in. In essence we pretty much have got what we deserved as we failed to support the club and the one thing you want you are not going to get unless you are creditor.

 

The administrator is there to act on behalf of the creditors and ensure they are repaid what they are owed (A) and hopefully sell the club as a going concern (B).

 

If A can't be achieved with B and debts repaid in full then the club will be either liquidiated and closed down and proceeds put towards the companies debt for distribution or partial repayment agreed couple with most convincing business plan to satisfy future repayment of creditors.

 

Your reassurance doesn't come into Robbie we as supporters are out of the loop. Lets all have a boycott to show our displeasure shall we?

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Thought: Won't most of the creditors, whom Begbies Traynor are there to protect, want both: (a) protection from outstanding debts and (b) the prospect of continuing to do business with the club in the future?

 

So, for the Administrator to ONLY look at protecting the 'here and now' revenue of creditors by choosing the 'make a quick buck' suitor would be short sighted and doing a disservice to the very people they are deployed to protect?

 

For example, if I run the company who prints the match day programmes, I will want a resolution that (a) makes sure I'm paid for all the programmes I have printed over the last quarter and not yet been paid for and (b) means that I can continue to print programmes in the future because the club is in long term safe hands.

 

So, long winded way of saying that I agree with your concerns Duncan but would be surprise (aka naive ?!) if Mr Fry is only thinking of the creditors in the past and present tenses without considering that these very people he is protecting have a living to make going forward.

 

I accept your point Trousers and certainly in the case of Cedar Press it is a valid one but when it comes to the big guns such as Aviva or Barclays I should think the former certainly could well do without our future business and Barclays probably wouldn't shed too many tears.

[Barry Horne]

Thought: Won't most of the creditors, whom Begbies Traynor are there to protect, want both: (a) protection from outstanding debts and (b) the prospect of continuing to do business with the club in the future?

 

So, for the Administrator to ONLY look at protecting the 'here and now' revenue of creditors by choosing the 'make a quick buck' suitor would be short sighted and doing a disservice to the very people they are deployed to protect?

 

For example, if I run the company who prints the match day programmes, I will want a resolution that (a) makes sure I'm paid for all the programmes I have printed over the last quarter and not yet been paid for and (b) means that I can continue to print programmes in the future because the club is in long term safe hands.

 

So, long winded way of saying that I agree with your concerns Duncan but would be surprised (aka naive ?!) if Mr Fry is only thinking of the creditors in the past and present tenses without considering that these very people he is protecting have a living to make going forward.

 

Agree with this sentiment. Everything I've heard from Fry so far very much indicates that he's looking at the future of the club, not just making sure debts are paid at whatever cost. Let's hop he's as sincere as he sounds.

[Clapham Saint]

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

 

Duncan,

 

Your assessment is pretty much correct.

 

As debenture holders Barclays/Aviva's consent will be required for the sale of the fixed charge assets. It is possible that they could advise Mr. Fry to accept the best bid for the "Club" rather than just the most money but I doubt it very much.

 

However, any investor looking to buy in cheap an asset stip a football club in the current environment is taking a big risk and could lose a lot of money. I hope (HOPE) that there shouldn't be too many of these amoungst the serious bidders. :smt102

[trousers]

I accept your point Trousers and certainly in the case of Cedar Press it is a valid one but when it comes to the big guns such as Aviva or Barclays I should think the former certainly could well do without our future business and Barclays probably wouldn't shed too many tears.

 

Yeah, fair point...I guess I was coming from the smaller local company perspective - i.e. those companies whose turnover relies a lot on the existence of the football club.

 

I'm just a sentimental old fool at the end of the day!

[Clapham Saint]

Thought: Won't most of the creditors, whom Begbies Traynor are there to protect, want both: (a) protection from outstanding debts and (b) the prospect of continuing to do business with the club in the future?

 

So, for the Administrator to ONLY look at protecting the 'here and now' revenue of creditors by choosing the 'make a quick buck' suitor would be short sighted and doing a disservice to the very people they are deployed to protect?

 

For example, if I run the company who prints the match day programmes, I will want a resolution that (a) makes sure I'm paid for all the programmes I have printed over the last quarter and not yet been paid for and (b) means that I can continue to print programmes in the future because the club is in long term safe hands.

 

So, long winded way of saying that I agree with your concerns Duncan but would be surprised (aka naive ?!) if Mr Fry is only thinking of the creditors in the past and present tenses without considering that these very people he is protecting have a living to make going forward.

 

Except that as chargeholders Barclays and Aviva will need to concent to the sale of the assets covered by their debentures.

 

They hold significantly more influence than Cedar Press or the milkman. Unfortunately.

[Nineteen Canteen]

The frightening thing is I hear that "Lifelong" is still very "active" and is almost certainly wrapped up in at least one of the consortiums. This sort of thing is why I remain anxious that Fry makes the "right" decision.

 

Need Clapham Saint to comment but in the unlikely event Lifelong has the strongest bid Fry puts it forward and the Creditors make the decision. Surely, the administrator is obligated to put forward the best bids without influence. Not sure as I'm not accountant but there must be regulatory rules that govern how these bids are managed and fry's role I assume is to complete the due diligence and present them without making any right or worng decisions and certainly not based on what is good for us.

[um pahars]

As debenture holders Barclays/Aviva's consent will be required for the sale of the fixed charge assets. It is possible that they could advise Mr. Fry to accept the best bid for the "Club" rather than just the most money but I doubt it very much.

 

That's what I was pinning any faints hopes on.

 

Aviva have a track record of supporting clubs and appear to have a good relationship with the Club, and maybe we could even play a part by leaning on them if some carpetbaggers showed up.

 

Additionally, Barclay's, despite their recent showings have an interest in football so fingers crossed there as well.

 

Very, very faint hope though and until we start to see who emerges then maybe we should all just start praying!!!!!

[JustMike]

Robbie you really make me laugh and cry in equal measure. You got your cake and now you want to it, well time to wake up and smell the coffee all our rights went out the window when Fry and Co walked in. In essence we pretty much have got what we deserved as we failed to support the club and the one thing you want you are not going to get unless you are creditor.

 

The administrator is there to act on behalf of the creditors and ensure they are repaid what they are owed (A) and hopefully sell the club as a going concern (B).

 

If A can't be achieved with B and debts repaid in full then the club will be either liquidiated and closed down and proceeds put towards the companies debt for distribution or partial repayment agreed couple with most convincing business plan to satisfy future repayment of creditors.

 

Your reassurance doesn't come into Robbie we as supporters are out of the loop. Lets all have a boycott to show our displeasure shall we?

 

still better than having Lowe. Still would have needed investment, people refused to deal with him, probably because he wanted far to much per share. I bet even he wishes he took the sisu (or whatever they were called) bid.

[Nineteen Canteen]

19C, you can rest assured the one consortium I was referring to does not (to the best of my current knowledge) include anyone who has previously been a director of either the PLC or Football Board.

 

Thank you, Duncan. That's reassuring as IMO it is the only way to forward from this mess.

[slickmick]

19C, you can rest assured the one consortium I was referring to does not (to the best of my current knowledge) include anyone who has previously been a director of either the PLC or Football Board.

 

 

Or ex manager ?

As regards Marc Jackson (LLS), if Mark Fry were to see that famous TV interview he had while trying to big it up at Bournemouth, then that should be the last we here of him.

[dubai_phil]

This news scares me too.

 

Surely Mr Fry would look at LLS's past 'endeavours' and realise that he's not very good at this sort of thing (c*ck up at Bournemouth springs to mind) and not take him seriously?

 

I do hope so.

 

Which brings us back to sqaure one.

 

It is irrelevant whether we "like" a bidder or even a member of a consortium.

 

As the anti-admin brigade tried to point out, once it happens, everything changes, it comes down to the DEAL.

 

If a dodgy arms dealer, a not indicted but rumoured human trafficker, or even an allegedly corrupt politician (Mrs Smith) or even tank top wearing lawyers can come forward WITH THE BEST PACKAGE AND THE MONEY, nobody EXCEPT the creditors can make any decision except acceptance.

 

Right now it is all about SHOW ME THE MONEY

 

One thing though IS for sure, if Fry has his wits about him then he will have EVERYBODY tied up by NDA's so we won't know anything until the deal is all but done

[Nineteen Canteen]

but that doesn't preclude their mates of course...........

 

maybe

 

Otherwise potentially known as underwriters. I think we have to take Duncan's response at face value and it is unlikely that any new director will not have any links whatsoever to our past we can only hope they don't seek their counsel to any great degree.

 

Like you said though if an ex-director had the only acceptable bid vs liquidation as the only other option then fans would have to support that bid wholeheartedly even if it mean't supporting any of the principal protaganists of our recent history.

 

Survival is better than extinction but god lets hope it doesn't come to that.

[Red and White Army]

What a stupid post.

 

If you believe the second paragraph, why whinge in the first paragraph ?

 

Is it not also likely that some of us "idiots" had the foresight to conclude the second paragraph MONTHS before you did ?

 

You're an idiot alpine, please don't interfere in grown up threads. :roll:

[jonah]

As far as I'm aware it's the creditors who decide wrt offers, and that means the secured creditors (ie. Aviva) are the ones in control. As far as I know Barclays don't have a fixed charge do they?

 

As for what we as fans want, well I'm afraid we're at the bottom of the pile too, the ones getting the say are Aviva, the ones getting the money are Aviva and the administrators.

 

Beyond that, it's just fingers crossed it's somebody completely unrelated to the previous business at the club - from Lowe, Wilde, Crouch, Corbett, to LLS, Fulthorpe and Salz. But you can bet your life several of them are involved somewhere in the bids.

[alpine_saint]

You're an idiot alpine, please don't interfere in grown up threads. :roll:

 

Wow, a post of all fart and no shiiit...

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Or ex manager ?

As regards Marc Jackson (LLS), if Mark Fry were to see that famous TV interview he had while trying to big it up at Bournemouth, then that should be the last we here of him.

 

I agree SlickMick but he was spotted lording it around SMS on Saturday shaking everyone's hand and generally acting like he was coming to the rescue.

[bridge too far]

I agree SlickMick but he was spotted lording it around SMS on Saturday shaking everyone's hand and generally acting like he was coming to the rescue.

 

He's just a small time business man whose ego is bigger than any of his appendages, apart from his head.

 

I can't believe that anyone would take him seriously.

[slickmick]

Why is LLS being taken seriously on here ? He's a blagger, all p1ss and wind.

[Nineteen Canteen]

still better than having Lowe. Still would have needed investment, people refused to deal with him, probably because he wanted far to much per share. I bet even he wishes he took the sisu (or whatever they were called) bid.

 

Mike, I think you're better and more insightful than this post of your's suggests. Playing Alpine's game doesn't suit you, doesn't suit alpine either but each to their own.

[Legod Third Coming]

I agree SlickMick but he was spotted lording it around SMS on Saturday shaking everyone's hand and generally acting like he was coming to the rescue.

 

In these situations you have to provide 'proof of finance' pretty quickly.

If he has that, he'll get a hearing. If not, he'll be sent away with a flea in his ear!

[derry]

I accept your point Trousers and certainly in the case of Cedar Press it is a valid one but when it comes to the big guns such as Aviva or Barclays I should think the former certainly could well do without our future business and Barclays probably wouldn't shed too many tears.

 

I think the short term debts such as Cedar Press would be taken care of by the football club not in administration. I expect those sort of things have been taken care of.

 

Duncan, if you really think that, then maybe a call to your contact, to make them aware that there is an initiative specifically to assist in that event. I obviously know who you are talking about and endorse their suitability from the limited information at my disposal.

 

As a matter of interest it is anticipated £15m would buy SLH and it's assets and clear the debt.

[slickmick]

I agree SlickMick but he was spotted lording it around SMS on Saturday shaking everyone's hand and generally acting like he was coming to the rescue.

 

 

There are a lot more credible candidates on this forum rather than that idiot.