Administration - Good or Bad?

[Guided Missile]

Now that the inevitable has happened, I wonder what people think, now that they reflect on the consequences. Many on this board have been campaigning for administration for a long time,as a way of ridding the club of a personality they disliked and reducing the debt in some way. Some, myself included, viewed it as the worst of all outcomes, demoralising for the players and employees, with uncertainty replacing hope.

 

The team look shattered to me, with their confidence destroyed. I can't see an alternative to relegation and a long, long fight to rebuild the club and a continual risk that the team will spend as long in Division One/Two as it did in the Premiership/Championship.

 

I wonder how many of the posters that wanted administration will say that the situation we are in now, is a good place to be. I also wonder what the true "surge" of support has been since Lowe has gone and the "fans" fighting for his removal flooded back to St. Marys. Cue replies of "It's too early to tell". That won't wash for me, because there is no way this course will ever be better than if the fans had kept going and administration had been avoided.

 

They say be careful what you wish for, as it may come true. Never has this been more apt...

[hypochondriac]

Far too early to tell if administration is a good or bad thing IMO. Once we know who is going to buy us (if anyone does at all) then we can make an early judgement.

[benjii]

Does this mean we should all retract our apologies to Alpine afterall?

[OldNick]

I know the Administrator thinks it's good, i think it is worse than bad.

[hypochondriac]

I know the Administrator thinks it's good, i think it is worse than bad.

 

Not necessarily. As I said at the moment all we can do is speculate until we hear the details of the interested parties.

[JustMike]

impossible to tell at this stage, i do believe we will get a buyer and be better off. Just have a feeling that this is as Lowe (couldnt resist it) as it will get.

[Stirchleysaint]

Its neither good nor bad. Many fans thought that the club was going down regardless of administration. The one hope is that there's a buyer out there that can stabilised the club.

[saintstr1]

Of Course Administration is not the Ideal Scenario and you are correct that a lot of fans hoped for it to rid us of Lowe , Which at the moment it has. It all depends on what happens from here on in , If we get a wealthy buyer of the type that has been discussed over the last few days and he is prepared to invest in the club , the team , the manager etc then yes administration might not have been a bad thing. If we only get back the likes of Lowe and some of the other clowns that have been involved , then well , what was the point.

I know I will probably sound like a old record but if we had carried on were we left off last season with Pearson at the helm I am 100% sure we would not be in administration or about to get relegated, again!!

Lowe has driven the club to this administration completly on his own and his continual bleeting "That is not his fault" is a insult to the intelligence of every SFC fan. History will show Lowe up for the failed person that he is and always has been............ All in my opinion off course.

[Saint Billy]

On the contrary, it could be a great thing depending on who buys us, and something that may never of happened if we had not gone into admin.

 

Why all of a sudden so many interested parties?

 

Was Lowe the stumbling block for new potential buyers/investors?

 

At the moment we can only guess at the answers, but I try to be optimistic by thinking that although we have more painful days ahead, this could very well be the clean slate and fresh start many of us have hoped for.

[Delmary]

Administration - Good or Bad? Bad. I pray and hope that there is a group or someone who's willing to financially rescue us and rebuild our wickened club.

[stevegrant]

Why all of a sudden so many interested parties?

Simply because in this situation the buyer holds all the aces and can pretty much name their price.

 

Pre-administration, any decision lay in the seller's hands, so any potential buyer knows they'll have to make an offer that is acceptable to the seller. That seller is taken out of the equation now, with the ultimate decision taken by the administrator.

 

In theory, as long as someone offers "something" to the creditors, there will be an accepted offer, but I suspect it may not be as simple as that.

[um pahars]

Now that the inevitable has happened, I wonder what people think, now that they reflect on the consequences. Many on this board have been campaigning for administration for a long time,as a way of ridding the club of a personality they disliked and reducing the debt in some way. Some, myself included, viewed it as the worst of all outcomes, demoralising for the players and employees, with uncertainty replacing hope.

 

The team look shattered to me, with their confidence destroyed. I can't see an alternative to relegation and a long, long fight to rebuild the club and a continual risk that the team will spend as long in Division One/Two as it did in the Premiership/Championship.

 

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist here.

 

A very small minority have been campaigning for administration, and it probably would have been easier for you to have PM'd them and asked them their thoughts directly.

 

I wonder how many of the posters that wanted administration will say that the situation we are in now, is a good place to be. I also wonder what the true "surge" of support has been since Lowe has gone and the "fans" fighting for his removal flooded back to St. Marys. Cue replies of "It's too early to tell". That won't wash for me, because there is no way this course will ever be better than if the fans had kept going and administration had been avoided.

 

Succinctly missing the point and failing to grasp that the fans not going to matches is not the issue. It's why they weren't going that is the key point.

 

You can stamp your feet as much as you like, you can shout until you're red in the face, but you can't force people to do anything.

 

If they don't see a reason to go (and there are a myriad of reasons for not going), then they won't go. Short of press ganging or making it compulsory, then attendances will ebb and flow, primarily due to success or failure. It happens at every club (with the odd one off exception).

 

I would have thought that an erudite busunessman such as yourself would appreciate the elasticity of demand. Every Club has a loyal following up to a point, after that you have to make people want to come along.

 

They say be careful what you wish for, as it may come true. Never has this been more apt...

 

Which goes back to the first point in that I think very few people actually wished for administration.

 

I personally think it is the worst thing that could have happened and I can't help but think we should have done everythign and anything to avoid it.

 

Although Barclay's changed the rules half way through the game I just don't think we have covered ourselves in glory by just blindly allowing it to happen (that's not the ridiculous appointment of the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up BTW, more to do with our later failure to comply with Barclay's demands e.g. someo one off cash rasing in the Jan transfer window, other sale of asset etc etc etc).

 

Whether we come out the other side stringer remains to be seen, but I fear the legacy of administration will hang over us for a while yet.

[Johnny Bognor]

I would have thought that an erudite busunessman such as yourself would appreciate the elasticity of demand.

 

I've been through elasticity of demand with GM bfore. Can't be bothered to go through it again, but as he is the master of digging up old posts, no doubt he can find it, read it and learn from it.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It's like jumping off the end of the pier - exhilarating if you land safely in the water , painful if you end up on the rocks .

[spain saint]

Ask this question again in a months time and people will be able to answer it then. I so far am not that bothered about going into admin, but that could all change if 1. we don´t get taken over by someone wealthy enough or 2. we get a massive points deduction by being made an example of!

 

All in all, although "it doesn´t wash with you" It is to early to say.

[um pahars]

I've been through elasticity of demand with GM bfore. Can't be bothered to go through it again, but as he is the master of digging up old posts, no doubt he can find it, read it and learn from it.

 

Indeed he is, but you need to be really on his pet hate list to make it int his note pad.

 

When I speak about elastivity of demand, I'm not just referring to price elasticity, but also a simple recognition that at a static price you have to give people a reason to come. Wins, goals, entertainment, a sense of belonging, a sense of belief, engender a community spirit etc etc etc.

 

Without delivering any of that it is simply not right to start blaming the customers for failing to buy the product.

[up and away]

On the contrary, it could be a great thing depending on who buys us, and something that may never of happened if we had not gone into admin.

 

Why all of a sudden so many interested parties?

 

Was Lowe the stumbling block for new potential buyers/investors?

 

At the moment we can only guess at the answers, but I try to be optimistic by thinking that although we have more painful days ahead, this could very well be the clean slate and fresh start many of us have hoped for.

 

Sounds almost attractive when you phrase it like that! It's just what that clean slate actually means that things take a different perspective.

 

That clean slate can easily mean having the football club go into administration so you can get rid of all the remaining high earners to stand a chance of being able to exist next season. That would mean a massive points deduction for administration and not agreeing the CVA's.

 

Alternatively you keep all those remaining high earners but can now no longer afford to buy back Staplewood. All that will do is set up a slow lingering waste into another round of administration.

 

What will happen to the stadium? If Aviva have any sense there will be no long term deal unless you go back to our previous interest rates. More than likely we will be renting it back at similar rates to what we were paying previously, but this time with little chance of holding back any repayments. If we lose the stadium for just a short period of time, that's our bed made and ground sharing with Eastleigh.

 

Crouch is rightly desperate for the football club not to go into administration so it can be bought as a going concern. But he cannot afford the £0.5M to keep us trading up to the point this can happen, so there's very little in that pot to pull everything out of the fire.

 

I cannot see anyone coming in until administration has laid bare the operating costs, but equally laid bare the facilities. There are those like Crouch who do not want that to happen, but they just don't have the cash to make it so. This is no investment, just a bottomless pit waiting to be fed with coin of the realm. If any real investor was involved be very afraid.

[Guided Missile]

I've been through elasticity of demand with GM bfore. Can't be bothered to go through it again, but as he is the master of digging up old posts, no doubt he can find it, read it and learn from it.

In the original post, I simply said that it would have been better if the fans had kept going and administration had been avoided, nothing more.

 

Since you bought up the subject of elasticity of demand, however, and while you are welcome to demonstrate that you gained an HNC in business administration, where you did an homework assignment on market economics, in this case we are talking about a football club, FFS, not a branch of MFI.

 

As I have captured the attention of two Dragons' Den wannabes, how about you and your fellow intellectual, Steve "Saints Go Wilde" Godwin commenting on the data below and your wholly inappropriate application of the "Elasticity of Demand" to the economics of community based organisations such as football clubs?

 

1995-1996

F.A. Carling Premier League

Manchester City 27,941

 

1996-1997

Nationwide League Division One

Manchester City 26,710

 

1997-1998

Nationwide League Division One

Manchester City 28,197

 

1998-1999

Nationwide League Division Two

Manchester City 28,273

 

1999-2000

Nationwide League Division One

Manchester City 32,088

 

Carling Premiership

2000-2001

Manchester City 34.058

[um pahars]

In the original post, I simply said that it would have been better if the fans had kept going and administration had been avoided, nothing more.

 

Since you bought up the subject of elasticity of demand, however, and while you are welcome to demonstrate that you gained an HNC in business administration, where you did an homework assignment on market economics, in this case we are talking about a football club, FFS, not a branch of MFI.

 

As I have captured the attention of two Dragons' Den wannabes, how about you and your fellow intellectual, Steve "Saints Go Wilde" Godwin commenting on the data below and your wholly inappropriate application of the "Elasticity of Demand" to the economics of community based organisations such as football clubs?

 

1995-1996

F.A. Carling Premier League

Manchester City 27,941

 

1996-1997

Nationwide League Division One

Manchester City 26,710

 

1997-1998

Nationwide League Division One

Manchester City 28,197

 

1998-1999

Nationwide League Division Two

Manchester City 28,273

 

1999-2000

Nationwide League Division One

Manchester City 32,088

 

Carling Premiership

2000-2001

Manchester City 34.058

 

One can only assume that you must have missed this littel ditty (I'll highlight it this time around).

 

If they don't see a reason to go (and there are a myriad of reasons for not going), then they won't go. Short of press ganging or making it compulsory, then attendances will ebb and flow, primarily due to success or failure. It happens at every club (with the odd one off exception).

 

 

So the, "Football Club Suffers Fall In Attendances Due To Poor Performances And Results", headline comes as a bit of a shock to you then????

 

And as for your retort in blue, then you might as well have simply said,

 

"it would have been better had crowds still been the same as when we were in the Premiership and everyone also donated another £20 each game"

 

as that would be just as irrelevant and as much of a fantasy.

Edited 11 April, 2009 by um pahars

[trousers]

Now that the inevitable has happened, I wonder what people think, now that they reflect on the consequences. Many on this board have been campaigning for administration for a long time,as a way of ridding the club of a personality they disliked and reducing the debt in some way. Some, myself included, viewed it as the worst of all outcomes, demoralising for the players and employees, with uncertainty replacing hope.

 

The team look shattered to me, with their confidence destroyed. I can't see an alternative to relegation and a long, long fight to rebuild the club and a continual risk that the team will spend as long in Division One/Two as it did in the Premiership/Championship.

 

I wonder how many of the posters that wanted administration will say that the situation we are in now, is a good place to be. I also wonder what the true "surge" of support has been since Lowe has gone and the "fans" fighting for his removal flooded back to St. Marys. Cue replies of "It's too early to tell". That won't wash for me, because there is no way this course will ever be better than if the fans had kept going and administration had been avoided.

 

They say be careful what you wish for, as it may come true. Never has this been more apt...

 

Grateful if you could post a list of the posters who were "campaigning" or "wished for" adminsitration so we know who we're talking about here. In the plethora of posts we've had about this I'm yet to see anyone able to quote more than a handful of 'suspects'.

 

Thanks.

[Saint Billy]

Sounds almost attractive when you phrase it like that! It's just what that clean slate actually means that things take a different perspective.

 

That clean slate can easily mean having the football club go into administration so you can get rid of all the remaining high earners to stand a chance of being able to exist next season. That would mean a massive points deduction for administration and not agreeing the CVA's.

 

Alternatively you keep all those remaining high earners but can now no longer afford to buy back Staplewood. All that will do is set up a slow lingering waste into another round of administration.

 

What will happen to the stadium? If Aviva have any sense there will be no long term deal unless you go back to our previous interest rates. More than likely we will be renting it back at similar rates to what we were paying previously, but this time with little chance of holding back any repayments. If we lose the stadium for just a short period of time, that's our bed made and ground sharing with Eastleigh.

 

Crouch is rightly desperate for the football club not to go into administration so it can be bought as a going concern. But he cannot afford the £0.5M to keep us trading up to the point this can happen, so there's very little in that pot to pull everything out of the fire.

 

I cannot see anyone coming in until administration has laid bare the operating costs, but equally laid bare the facilities. There are those like Crouch who do not want that to happen, but they just don't have the cash to make it so. This is no investment, just a bottomless pit waiting to be fed with coin of the realm. If any real investor was involved be very afraid.

 

I am hoping the club will be purchased before the club goes into admin, isn't that what the administrators are trying to do at present?

[OldNick]

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist here.

 

A very small minority have been campaigning for administration, and it probably would have been easier for you to have PM'd them and asked them their thoughts directly.

 

 

 

.

There is a thread with a poll and bout a third voted to go into administration , thats quite a few Ump.

I agree that you were not gagging for it though

[John B]

Now that the inevitable has happened, I wonder what people think, now that they reflect on the consequences. Many on this board have been campaigning for administration for a long time,as a way of ridding the club of a personality they disliked and reducing the debt in some way. Some, myself included, viewed it as the worst of all outcomes, demoralising for the players and employees, with uncertainty replacing hope.

 

The team look shattered to me, with their confidence destroyed. I can't see an alternative to relegation and a long, long fight to rebuild the club and a continual risk that the team will spend as long in Division One/Two as it did in the Premiership/Championship.

 

I wonder how many of the posters that wanted administration will say that the situation we are in now, is a good place to be. I also wonder what the true "surge" of support has been since Lowe has gone and the "fans" fighting for his removal flooded back to St. Marys. Cue replies of "It's too early to tell". That won't wash for me, because there is no way this course will ever be better than if the fans had kept going and administration had been avoided.

 

They say be careful what you wish for, as it may come true. Never has this been more apt...

 

Administration I would have thought is bad for the shareholders creditors and employees but maybe good in the long term for SFC and the fans if we are not deducted any points

[um pahars]

There is a thread with a poll and bout a third voted to go into administration , thats quite a few Ump.

I agree that you were not gagging for it though

 

I would hardly equate voting on a poll on here, following a demorailising defeat, with relegation and administration staring you in the face, and the mood being, "let's get it over and done with" with campaigning for administration for a long time.

 

There's probably been a handful of people campaigning for administration - Alpine, Stanley, ???, ???, ???

[OldNick]

I would hardly equate voting on a poll on here, following a demorailising defeat, with relegation and administration staring you in the face, and the mood being, "let's get it over and done with" with campaigning for administration for a long time.

 

There's probably been a handful of people campaigning for administration - Alpine, Stanley, ???, ???, ???

Richmond.

It doesnt matter if was after a defeat or a victory there were a third voting for it

[um pahars]

Richmond.

It doesnt matter if was after a defeat or a victory there were a third voting for it

 

And so therefore they are campaigning for it.

 

Fck me sometimes I wonder just how your logic works:rolleyes::smt119:rolleyes::smt119:rolleyes:

[OldNick]

And so therefore they are campaigning for it.

 

Fck me sometimes I wonder just how your logic works:rolleyes::smt119:rolleyes::smt119:rolleyes:

when you were in charge of the Trust or whatever it was did you have all these emotions you used in the voting system to try and make your point a bit more impressive.They are so childlike and i really dont understand somebody who is so serious uses those infantile things.

I dont know if they were campaigning as there wasnt a march or anything like that being organised but they were happy to vote yes.

[um pahars]

when you were in charge of the Trust or whatever it was did you have all these emotions you used in the voting system to try and make your point a bit more impressive.They are so childlike and i really dont understand somebody who is so serious uses those infantile things.

 

Beacause this is the noddy, anonymous, ether world of the internet where clicking on a poll does not equate to campaigning (unless you're a total dinlo of course).

 

I dont know if they were campaigning as there wasnt a march or anything like that being organised but they were happy to vote yes.

 

Well if you don't know if they were campaigning then WTF are you inferring they were for then???.:smt119:smt119

 

So let's keep ths simple and get back to the point in context.

 

Please feel free to furnish this forum with evidence that many on this board have been campaigning for administration.

 

So far we have Stanley, Alpine, Richmond (and even then they're only posting their views up on here) or did I miss the five man march for administration???

[Third Division South Days]

I am hoping the club will be purchased before the club goes into admin, isn't that what the administrators are trying to do at present?

 

I think you'll find we are in administration now and if a buyer is not found by the end of the season SFC will be insolvent and will no longer exist!

[OldNick]

Beacause this is the noddy, anonymous, ether world of the internet where clicking on a poll does not equate to campaigning (unless you're a total dinlo of course).

 

 

 

Well if you don't know if they were campaigning then WTF are you inferring they were for then???.:smt119:smt119

 

So let's keep ths simple and get back to the point in context.

 

Please feel free to furnish this forum with evidence that many on this board have been campaigning for administration.

 

So far we have Stanley, Alpine, Richmond (and even then they're only posting their views up on here) or did I miss the five man march for administration???

My god you are an awkward bu##ar. Campaigning /in favour it still shows that there were a lot wanting it.I didnt think that somebody that puts Steven Hawking to shame like you do, would see that.

[egreog]

Things are pretty gloomy right now, but if it brings a buyer with investment and a resurgence in performance on the field, imagine how buoyant things could be in 12 months time.........IF, big IF, Saints bounce back into the Championship.........the fans would flock back to watch the team if it has a desire to win unlike this sorry bunch of losers.........

 

.....the down side is that the whole thing could fold completely in a month or so.......I doubt that will happen, and hope for a new dawn as opposed to years of oblivion or worse

[trousers]

There is a thread with a poll and bout a third voted to go into administration

 

Link please. Cheers. (need to see how the question was worded - thanks)

[trousers]

It's OK...I've found it....

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=9838&highlight=administration

 

The question wasn't as "black and white" as being suggested on here....it was about the technicalities of going into Admin before or after the deadline....i.e. it was a loaded question.

 

I'm sure if you asked the question: "Would you prefer to go into Administration even if there's a good chance of surviving and prospering without it?" then you would get a different percentage.

 

Still, it makes the debate more interesting to ignore the small print

[alpine_saint]

Now that the inevitable has happened, I wonder what people think, now that they reflect on the consequences. Many on this board have been campaigning for administration for a long time,as a way of ridding the club of a personality they disliked and reducing the debt in some way. Some, myself included, viewed it as the worst of all outcomes, demoralising for the players and employees, with uncertainty replacing hope.

 

The team look shattered to me, with their confidence destroyed. I can't see an alternative to relegation and a long, long fight to rebuild the club and a continual risk that the team will spend as long in Division One/Two as it did in the Premiership/Championship.

 

I wonder how many of the posters that wanted administration will say that the situation we are in now, is a good place to be. I also wonder what the true "surge" of support has been since Lowe has gone and the "fans" fighting for his removal flooded back to St. Marys. Cue replies of "It's too early to tell". That won't wash for me, because there is no way this course will ever be better than if the fans had kept going and administration had been avoided.

 

They say be careful what you wish for, as it may come true. Never has this been more apt...

 

Not a surprising slant from you, Johnny.

 

If the council are really up for buying SMS and there are 30-odd parties interested in the club, I would say it has been worthwhile. I conceed that it is too early to conclude, since no deals have been concluded yet. However, as I have said all along, SOME hope has replaced NO hope.

 

As you said, the "inevitable" has happened. This club was down from when Poortvillet replaced Pearson

 

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

 

I am finding it hard to understand under any circumstances you two can say "told you so" about this. So f**king what if we have to sell a load of our players ? They are f**king shiit anway. Exactly what is this apocalyptic scenario that you two predicted that is coming true ???

[alpine_saint]

Of Course Administration is not the Ideal Scenario and you are correct that a lot of fans hoped for it to rid us of Lowe , which at the moment it has.

 

Indeed; the only concrete consequences so fare are :

 

Lowe has lost control of the club

Lowe and Wilde have lost their money

 

So I would say it is 1-0 to the pro-admin side.

[OldNick]

Link please. Cheers. (need to see how the question was worded - thanks)

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=9838&highlight=administration

[trousers]

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=9838&highlight=administration

 

Thanks, but already found it and commented on it on post #33 above. Cheers

 

And, just to reiterate....the poll was a loaded question. See above for alternative way of asking the question.

[Guided Missile]

Here's one that measures the muppet factor on this website...

[Window Cleaner]

Anyway administration is bad, it just lets the lunatic fringe pretend that they're important and are going to save the club with money which they don't of course have. People like to talk money, having it is something completely different.

[Guided Missile]

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

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

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

[OldNick]

 

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

 

I am finding it hard to understand under any circumstances you two can say "told you so" about this. So f**king what if we have to sell a load of our players ? They are f**king shiit anway. Exactly what is this apocalyptic scenario that you two predicted that is coming true ???

Scaremongering!!! What experience have you of administration?

I have seen the results of it as i have stated in a previous post.

I am pointing out what happens, the administrator earns lots of money and what is left will be a skeleton. I hope that 1 of the group interested do have serious funds but reading FF post and that his lot seem worried about competition concerns me that they have small funds to play with.

I want to be wrong on this as the very thing that i have invested a lot of my free time is at serious risk.

[trousers]

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

 

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

 

I'm not in the "Admin must be good by definition because there was no other way" camp but I'm not sure what other camp to put my foot in as all we get on here is one camp criticising another rather than any truley fresh ideas.

 

So, back to the question....name a better way of getting to the desired "fresh start" position than via Admin.

 

Cheers.

[alpine_saint]

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

 

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

 

I'm not in the "Admin must be good by definition because there was no other way" camp but I'm not sure what other camp to put my foot in as all we get on here is one camp criticising another rather than any truley fresh ideas.

 

So, back to the question....name a better way of getting to the desired "fresh start" position than via Admin.

 

Cheers.

 

Dont expect any sensible answers any time soon..

[John B]

I think you can only answer your question in 2 to 3 years.

 

 

You were probably happy to get rid of Lowe when Wilde came in and see what that led to.

 

 

It is possible that Administration could be a success but it could also be a failure only time will tell.

 

 

Success back in the Championship by 2012?

[Guided Missile]

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

[OldNick]

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

 

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

 

I'm not in the "Admin must be good by definition because there was no other way" camp but I'm not sure what other camp to put my foot in as all we get on here is one camp criticising another rather than any truley fresh ideas.

 

So, back to the question....name a better way of getting to the desired "fresh start" position than via Admin.

 

Cheers.

Obviously it would be a proper investor came in who was wealthy enough to buy the club outright.

If a man is wealthy enough to buy the club it wouldnt matter if it was 5-10m too dear.

It really isnt rocket science.We have had people come in for us who needed to count the pennies and so paying 35p a share and not 65p a share was an issue.If you are talking real money these things dont matter.

Waiting for the club to go into administration would suggest to me that they are all in the successful but not super rich category.

[Delmary]

Obviously it would be a proper investor came in who was wealthy enough to buy the club outright.

If a man is wealthy enough to buy the club it wouldnt matter if it was 5-10m too dear.

It really isnt rocket science.We have had people come in for us who needed to count the pennies and so paying 35p a share and not 65p a share was an issue.If you are talking real money these things dont matter.

Waiting for the club to go into administration would suggest to me that they are all in the successful but not super rich category.

Depends on their motivation for buying the club. The reason we now see so many interested parties is because the club is available well below market price and also the awkward plc structure has been removed. Therefore, potentially the club is now a much better investment opportunity.

[Clapham Saint]

Not necessarily. As I said at the moment all we can do is speculate until we hear the details of the interested parties.

 

It could go either way.

 

I don't think that the administration is the cause of our ****e results and so we would have been relegated anyway.

 

What adninistration has done is isolate the extreme outcomes.

 

Either we will be sold and begin on the slow road to rebuilding the club which I don't beleive would have happened without administration as Lowe wounld still be here, or we will cease to exist.

 

This gamble is why I was against taking administration as the worst case outcome is not something which I feel comfortable even thinking about.

 

As they say "Don't gamble what you aren't prepared to lose".

[um pahars]

It's OK...I've found it....

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=9838&highlight=administration

 

The question wasn't as "black and white" as being suggested on here....it was about the technicalities of going into Admin before or after the deadline....i.e. it was a loaded question.

 

I'm sure if you asked the question: "Would you prefer to go into Administration even if there's a good chance of surviving and prospering without it?" then you would get a different percentage.

 

Still, it makes the debate more interesting to ignore the small print

 

Thanks for highlighting nickh's ignorance LOL.

 

How the fck can you even think that that poll, with that question, in that context equates to people campaigning for administration I'll never know LMFAO.:smt119:rolleyes:

[um pahars]

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

 

What are you going on about?????

 

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

 

Even prior to Rule 34 being circumvented it was shareholders who still controlled the decisions of the vast majority of football clubs.