Guided Missile Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 A quick glance at the Balance Sheet from last year may give a clue. The plc had net assets of £2,296K as of last year. The majority of our assets, outside the value of the stadium are in the form of intangible assets (players to you and me) valued at £6,376K. Two interesting facts will not escape the forensic accountants and the administrators from this. The first is that the plc consists mainly of assets that are related to football, ie the Stadium and the players registrations. So, that's a 10 point deduction, as far as I can see. The second is that to have any hope of paying back Barclays, the adminstrator needs to raise well over £6M from Southampton Football Club Ltd and collect as much of the Trade Debtors and Cash Equivalents as they can. The trouble is, I can't see anyone paying anywhere near £23M for St. Mary's, so any shortfall from this will come straight out of what Barclays can get their hands on. So, for the Administrator to get his Brucie bonus, he will want £15M for Southampton Football Club Ltd., £15M for the Stadium and Jackson's Farm and £750K for himself. Frankly, I reckon 50p in the pound (£4.5M for the club, £10M for the stadium and farm and £500K for the Administrator after the 10 point deduction) will be a real achievement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Who gives a shiiit ? I couldnt give a crap about which wannabee Fred Goodwins are out of pocket. I care about the existence of SFC and the points deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 If its that obvious, why do they need to carry out a forensic check ? There has to be some hidden clause that is causing concern. Despite his faults, Rupert Lowe is no fool and would have looked at every legal loophole available to him. I still think if we were to get someone in that is willing to honour the debts we will escape a 10 point deduction, in much the same way Derby did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Who gives a shiiit ? I couldnt give a crap about which wannabee Fred Goodwins are out of pocket. I care about the existence of SFC and the points deduction. The trouble is, the bit we'd rather not know about will probably lead to the latter bit we're all interested in.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 (edited) Supplementary question: How many hours per day are the Football League's financial scrutineers devoting to fine-toothcombing our accounts and how far through their investigations are they to date? I, of course, assume the Football League are conducting their interrogations with transparency..... Edited 15 April, 2009 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Supplementary question: How many hours per day are the Football League's financial scrutineers devoting to fine-toothcombing and how far through their investigations are they to date? I, of course, assume the Football League are conducting their interrogations with transparency..... My guess is very little, they are waiting and hoping a deal of some kind can be done before the end of the season. They will then look to see if we are gaining a financial advantage before deciding our punishment. If we haven't got a buyer in before the end of the season then their hand will be forced and a 10 point deduction will follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 A quick glance at the Balance Sheet from last year may give a clue. The plc had net assets of £2,296K as of last year. The majority of our assets, outside the value of the stadium are in the form of intangible assets (players to you and me) valued at £6,376K. Two interesting facts will not escape the forensic accountants and the administrators from this. The first is that the plc consists mainly of assets that are related to football, ie the Stadium and the players registrations. So, that's a 10 point deduction, as far as I can see. The second is that to have any hope of paying back Barclays, the adminstrator needs to raise well over £6M from Southampton Football Club Ltd and collect as much of the Trade Debtors and Cash Equivalents as they can. The trouble is, I can't see anyone paying anywhere near £23M for St. Mary's, so any shortfall from this will come straight out of what Barclays can get their hands on. So, for the Administrator to get his Brucie bonus, he will want £15M for Southampton Football Club Ltd., £15M for the Stadium and Jackson's Farm and £750K for himself. Frankly, I reckon 50p in the pound (£4.5M for the club, £10M for the stadium and farm and £500K for the Administrator after the 10 point deduction) will be a real achievement... Quick rule question ; is the points deduction automatic because of administration, or dependent on how much we pay back, eg if we found a buyer who paid teh creditors in full, and took us out of admin still result in points deduction.... I thought it was all to do with getting away with not paying debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Quick rule question ; is the points deduction automatic because of administration' date=' or dependent on how much we pay back, eg if we found a buyer who paid teh creditors in full, and took us out of admin still result in points deduction.... I thought it was all to do with getting away with not paying debt?[/quote'] Very grey area. Darlington got hit with a 10 point deduction immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 A quick glance at the Balance Sheet from last year may give a clue. The plc had net assets of £2,296K as of last year. The majority of our assets, outside the value of the stadium are in the form of intangible assets (players to you and me) valued at £6,376K. Two interesting facts will not escape the forensic accountants and the administrators from this. The first is that the plc consists mainly of assets that are related to football, ie the Stadium and the players registrations. So, that's a 10 point deduction, as far as I can see. The second is that to have any hope of paying back Barclays, the adminstrator needs to raise well over £6M from Southampton Football Club Ltd and collect as much of the Trade Debtors and Cash Equivalents as they can. The trouble is, I can't see anyone paying anywhere near £23M for St. Mary's, so any shortfall from this will come straight out of what Barclays can get their hands on. So, for the Administrator to get his Brucie bonus, he will want £15M for Southampton Football Club Ltd., £15M for the Stadium and Jackson's Farm and £750K for himself. Frankly, I reckon 50p in the pound (£4.5M for the club, £10M for the stadium and farm and £500K for the Administrator after the 10 point deduction) will be a real achievement... Football Creditors and HMRC will require to be indemnified 100p in the £. The first set of creditors will be important as if they aren't satisfied I believe that puts us in breach of FL rules and gives the FL the right to apply sanctions. The second set is likely to vote against any proposal less than 100% reimbursement so if we owe big numbers to the taxman we may have an issue on agreeing any administration deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Quick rule question ; is the points deduction automatic because of administration' date=' or dependent on how much we pay back, eg if we found a buyer who paid teh creditors in full, and took us out of admin still result in points deduction.... I thought it was all to do with getting away with not paying debt?[/quote'] The deduction is automatic for going into administration. Our argument is that the club hasn't, so can't be deducted points. As for GM's points about the accounts (and not having seen them, this is a question rather than a counterargument) - wouldn't they be consolidated accounts for the group, including PLC and SFC? PLC's own accounts may only show the value of the shareholding in SFC, Jackson's Farm etc. Unfortunately, they seem to have been removed from the OS so haven't been able to check. I'm sure that Begbies and DLA have been through all of these questions throroughly before taking the action they have, and both seem pretty confident of the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 15 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 15 April, 2009 As for GM's points about the accounts (and not having seen them, this is a question rather than a counterargument) - wouldn't they be consolidated accounts for the group, including PLC and SFC? PLC's own accounts may only show the value of the shareholding in SFC, Jackson's Farm etc. Unfortunately, they seem to have been removed from the OS so haven't been able to check. The plc's 2008 consolidated accounts are here. They include the value of the players registrations as intangible assets, so any argument that the plc is a separate entity not entirely associated with football and associated football debts won't wash, IMO. 10 points deducted or my d! cks a bloater... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RinNY Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 A quick glance at the Balance Sheet from last year may give a clue. The plc had net assets of £2,296K as of last year. The majority of our assets, outside the value of the stadium are in the form of intangible assets (players to you and me) valued at £6,376K. Two interesting facts will not escape the forensic accountants and the administrators from this. The first is that the plc consists mainly of assets that are related to football, ie the Stadium and the players registrations. So, that's a 10 point deduction, as far as I can see. The second is that to have any hope of paying back Barclays, the adminstrator needs to raise well over £6M from Southampton Football Club Ltd and collect as much of the Trade Debtors and Cash Equivalents as they can. The trouble is, I can't see anyone paying anywhere near £23M for St. Mary's, so any shortfall from this will come straight out of what Barclays can get their hands on. So, for the Administrator to get his Brucie bonus, he will want £15M for Southampton Football Club Ltd., £15M for the Stadium and Jackson's Farm and £750K for himself. Frankly, I reckon 50p in the pound (£4.5M for the club, £10M for the stadium and farm and £500K for the Administrator after the 10 point deduction) will be a real achievement... I may be misremembering this, but I seem to recall that Jackson's Farm was listed in the books as an asset at around 5 million, which is close the the valuation of the players, and is a non-football asset for which the PLC had a "first refusal" development contract with some builder outfit (I forget which) -- a contract the PLC was waiting out I believe. Would that not invalidate your 10 point deduction argument? As to the final payout: all football creditors must be paid in full. After that, everyone else is in line for whatever can be gotten. The payout for Leeds was just pennies in the pound. The treasury did not like that, but had to agree in the end. In our case, is there any evidence that SLH owes any substantial sum to the Treasury? It was, in our case, a bank and not the Treasury that pulled the plug, remember. Moreover, whereas Leeds had already sold Elland Road and their training ground before going into admin, I seem to recall, we still have those assets. I think our whole situation, in other words, is not quite as bleak as you paint it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incongruous Monk Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 The plc's 2008 consolidated accounts are here. They include the value of the players registrations as intangible assets, so any argument that the plc is a separate entity not entirely associated with football and associated football debts won't wash, IMO. 10 points deducted or my d! cks a bloater... What's also worth remembering is that although the PLC is almost entirely football related now that's due to a large amount of consolidation in the last few years in an attempt to stave off this situation. We've offloaded financial services, broadcasting etc. The other point to remember is that from a legal point-of-view a holding company and a company they own are distinct separate things. The clubs view seems to be we have a strong LEGAL case rather than a strong footballing case. Unfortunately I think if the league impose sanctions there will be a (potentially lengthy) appeal from the club and lord knows how that will end. The FL will be praying we get relegated right now as that'll make their position a lot easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third Division South Days Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 The plc's 2008 consolidated accounts are here. They include the value of the players registrations as intangible assets, so any argument that the plc is a separate entity not entirely associated with football and associated football debts won't wash, IMO. 10 points deducted or my d! cks a bloater... Im sure if it is that simple the ten points would be applied already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 15 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 15 April, 2009 I may be misremembering this, but I seem to recall that Jackson's Farm was listed in the books as an asset at around 5 million, which is close the the valuation of the players, and is a non-football asset for which the PLC had a "first refusal" development contract with some builder outfit (I forget which) -- a contract the PLC was waiting out I believe. Would that not invalidate your 10 point deduction argument? It's on the books at a value of £1.1M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 I may be misremembering this, but I seem to recall that Jackson's Farm was listed in the books as an asset at around 5 million, which is close the the valuation of the players, and is a non-football asset for which the PLC had a "first refusal" development contract with some builder outfit (I forget which) -- a contract the PLC was waiting out I believe. Would that not invalidate your 10 point deduction argument? As to the final payout: all football creditors must be paid in full. After that, everyone else is in line for whatever can be gotten. The payout for Leeds was just pennies in the pound. The treasury did not like that, but had to agree in the end. In our case, is there any evidence that SLH owes any substantial sum to the Treasury? It was, in our case, a bank and not the Treasury that pulled the plug, remember. Moreover, whereas Leeds had already sold Elland Road and their training ground before going into admin, I seem to recall, we still have those assets. I think our whole situation, in other words, is not quite as bleak as you paint it here. JF book value is 1.1 million Bovis option expired in early April according to posts on here ages ago Think GM is overstating the percentages for the general creditors though, tax & football debts are sacrosanct, but there will be some areas of negotiation, likely to be Barclays who may listen to an offer of cash and a secured longer term loan (ie the buyers may simply need to sign a guarantee) and also the general creditors (the suppliers and maybe even the council for rates rents or whatever) I still also have a gut feeling that the whole global banking mess of dicing up loans and reselling them may impact on the value Aviva would accept. I just think they may have sold it on or even have it as a toxic debt. No idea how it impacts the whole FL issue though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 (edited) There are two distinct arguments here. The first one is that the PLC is in administration and that SFC Ltd is still trading as a seperate legal entity, and therefore it is not technically in administration. Therefore it is technically not in breach of the League's insolvency regulations. The counter line is that the two companies are effectively one and the same and that the PLC is in administration as a direct result of the SFC Ltd's commercial activities etc etc etc. That although there is a legal disticntion between the two, they do not trade at arms length and the results of one are integral to the other. A good old accountancy ruling is substance over form and I can't help but feel that if it was applied to us in our current predicament, then the line "economic reality and not merely their legal form" would come in to play and we would be held to be in breach of League regulations regarding administration. Here are two good examples of its definition in accountancy. Substance Over Form (1) When an entity practice the Substance Over Form, it means that the financial statements reflect the financial reality of the entity (Substance) rather than the legal form of the transactions and events(Form) which underlie them. To put it very simply: if it is a goat but it was disguised in a legal form to look like a dog, Substance Over Form would prevail to reinstate that it is a goat and not a dog! Substance Over Form (2) If information is to represent faithfully the transactions and other events that it purports to represent, it is necessary that they are accounted for and presented in accordance with their substance and economic reality and not merely their legal form. The substance of transactions or other events is not always consistent with that which is apparent from their legal or contrived form. For example, an enterprise may dispose of an asset to another party in such a way that the documentation purports to pass legal ownership to that party; nevertheless, agreements may exist that ensure that the enterprise continues to enjoy the future economic benefits embodied in the asset. In such circumstances, the reporting of a sale would not represent faithfully the transaction entered into (if indeed there was a transaction). With regards the creditors getting their money, then anything and everything is up for grabs. The administrator will do whatever he sees fit to extract the most money from the busines to be able to satisfy creditors (from selling everything as a going concern to a firesale of anything and everything). What might be interesting is how secure Barclays feel they are. Not least because they appear to have security on the overdraft (as per the accounts), but also as Lowe recently stated with regards the two biggest debtors of Aviva and Barclays, "Barclays position was very simple 'we're better secured than them (Aviva) and really as far as we're concerned we're very comfortable with our own position' ". Edited 15 April, 2009 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Quick rule question ; is the points deduction automatic because of administration' date=' or dependent on how much we pay back, eg if we found a buyer who paid teh creditors in full, and took us out of admin still result in points deduction.... I thought it was all to do with getting away with not paying debt?[/quote'] Then you have the issue of how much of a help has it been to defer bills over that interim period? So yes the deduction applies immediately. As to the original question, I would imagine the way this can only work is that money from the buyout will go towards squaring Barclay's and keeping everything else solvent. We will have to come to some agreement with Aviva on the stadium, but that does appear possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 (edited) Edited 15 April, 2009 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Who gives a shiiit ? I couldnt give a crap about which wannabee Fred Goodwins are out of pocket. I care about the existence of SFC and the points deduction. And what about the small, local businesses who are doubtless owed money by SLH and will be way down the pecking order? I imagine that they "give a shiiit" if they don't get paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 15 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 15 April, 2009 And what about the small, local businesses who are doubtless owed money by SLH and will be way down the pecking order? I imagine that they "give a shiiit" if they don't get paid. Who cares? They're only run by "Southamptoners", anyway... ************irony alert*********** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 And what about the small, local businesses who are doubtless owed money by SLH and will be way down the pecking order? I imagine that they "give a shiiit" if they don't get paid. Hopefully, a lot of them saw the writing on the wall and start demanding COD this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Why should Barclay's be worried when they'll be covered by insurance on the overdraft? In the current crisis all they have done is exert pressure on clients so that they can activate insurance claims. It is to be wondered whether this wasn't the only reason they pulled the rug from Lowe and Wilde's plans for survival. At the same time I've felt Lowe and Wilde had taken enough from Barclay's manoeuvering, and just put the company into Administration to have and be done with their petty games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 The plc's 2008 consolidated accounts are here. They include the value of the players registrations as intangible assets, so any argument that the plc is a separate entity not entirely associated with football and associated football debts won't wash, IMO. 10 points deducted or my d! cks a bloater... GM, I think you are getting confused. Having looked at the accounts, player registrations are only included as intangible assets of the group on a consolidated basis, I assume that they are within SFCL. When companies form part of a group, the parent is obliged by law to submit consolidated accounts for the group as a whole and invidual accounts for itself. This does not result in them becoming the same thing from a legal perspective. When you look at the individual balance sheet for SLH itself (p39-44), the assets of that company are just property and shares in group companies, which ties in with what the administrator is arguing. Having now looked at the accounts, I am more confident that the adminstrator's argument will stand up to scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzmeister Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 At this point spearate parts of the football club cant be sold as this would consitatute as the 'football club' being in administration. The football club is an 'asset' to the holding company and as such would need to be sold as a single asset. With respect to the creditots etc. The bank, nor HMRC are classed as Primary creditors. They are secondary and wont be paid until the employees of the Plc who have lost their jobs are paid their statatory losses (i.e. notice, holiday etc). With respect to the fees the administrators would either be paid by the hour or have arranged a fixed amount with the creditor who appointed them (in this case the bank). I know this from a years experience in the industry, thats not to say though that this is gospel, Im just speaking from my own experieneces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 15 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Why should Barclay's be worried when they'll be covered by insurance on the overdraft? Says who?? I would be amazed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Bucket collections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 With respect to the fees the administrators would either be paid by the hour or have arranged a fixed amount with the creditor who appointed them (in this case the bank). I am slightly confused. Didn't Lowe appoint the administrators after cheques were bounced (by Barclays) so as not to be seen trading whilst insolvent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Two interesting facts will not escape the forensic accountants and the administrators from this. The first is that the plc consists mainly of assets that are related to football, ie the Stadium and the players registrations. So, that's a 10 point deduction, as far as I can see. Forensic accountants are as much use as a chocolate teapot, or in Ken Dulieu's case an orange teapot. I would never get a legal opinion from an accountant and I hope/assume the club and administrators haven't either. Legally they are separate entities so I can only see a (valid) 10 point deduction if they come up with some other reason to do so. Either way it'll end up in court so they might as well just toss a coin at the Football League and let the lawyers sort it out before next season starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 I am slightly confused. Didn't Lowe appoint the administrators after cheques were bounced (by Barclays) so as not to be seen trading whilst insolvent? The BANK appointed the Administrators. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 What might be interesting is how secure Barclays feel they are. Not least because they appear to have security on the overdraft (as per the accounts), but also as Lowe recently stated with regards the two biggest debtors of Aviva and Barclays, "Barclays position was very simple 'we're better secured than them (Aviva) and really as far as we're concerned we're very comfortable with our own position' ". Can you tell me what security Barclays have on the overdraft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 15 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 15 April, 2009 GM, I think you are getting confused. Having looked at the accounts, player registrations are only included as intangible assets of the group on a consolidated basis, I assume that they are within SFCL. The reason I may be confused, concerning the player registrations and where the corresponding intangible asset figure resides, is that I haven't assumed that they are within the legal entity, SFCL. You may be right, from an accounting standpoint, but I don't think that matters. The reason you are forced to assume who holds the player registrations is because the Group has not shown the individual P&L and Balance Sheets, nor the related inter-company transactions. The reason they haven't done this is because, from the 2008 Annual Report: "The Group has one main business segment, that of professional football operations. As a result, no additional business segment information is required to be provided." This is what will trigger the 10 point deduction, IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Forensic accountants are as much use as a chocolate teapot, or in Ken Dulieu's case an orange teapot. I would never get a legal opinion from an accountant and I hope/assume the club and administrators haven't either. Legally they are separate entities so I can only see a (valid) 10 point deduction if they come up with some other reason to do so. Either way it'll end up in court so they might as well just toss a coin at the Football League and let the lawyers sort it out before next season starts. Agree. The FL messed up with who/what could hold the "golden share" while the club owners would lose many rights through accepting the golden share. As a PLC has legal obligations beyond the league's remit, some clubs have chosen the holding plc route, the FL didn't and still don't have a clue what is in store for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Forensic accountants are as much use as a chocolate teapot, Pray tell what you base that rather bold claim on?? I would never get a legal opinion from an accountant. Of course you wouldn't, it would be akin to asking for a lawyer to audit your accounts. Methinks you don't really have much idea of what forensic accounting entails and who does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Sadly GM is right in his first post and it accords with my view that the 10 points deduction will happen. Which is likely to mean we start in L1 10 points behind. So much for Lowe's "revolutionary club structure" that was going to avoid the 10 points hit! I also think that SMS will be sold for around £10m. Probably to the Council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Can you tell me what security Barclays have on the overdraft? I'm afraid I don't know that one, but I'm sure someone could find out by having a dig around. The way Lowe was talking was that Barclays were pretty happy with their position, so can assume they believe they're either at the front of the queue or in a good position to collect their monies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Wayman Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Very grey area. Darlington got hit with a 10 point deduction immediately. The aim of the points deduction is I believe to ensure that crafty directors don't wind up a club then immediately re-buy it free of debt and carry on regardless as if nothing had happened. If SLC found a buyer willing to take on the debt as well as the assets, then I don't see how the FL could deduct points from Saints. It is the DEBT issue that will dog us in legal negotiations with the FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 (edited) GM, I think you are getting confused. Having looked at the accounts, player registrations are only included as intangible assets of the group on a consolidated basis, I assume that they are within SFCL. When companies form part of a group, the parent is obliged by law to submit consolidated accounts for the group as a whole and invidual accounts for itself. This does not result in them becoming the same thing from a legal perspective. When you look at the individual balance sheet for SLH itself (p39-44), the assets of that company are just property and shares in group companies, which ties in with what the administrator is arguing. Having now looked at the accounts, I am more confident that the adminstrator's argument will stand up to scrutiny. Rational Rich is correct above. In terms of assessing what will happen in the administration the consolidated accounts are misleading as they effectively summarise what would be the case if everything was owned by a single large company. This isn't the case with SLH and the companies must be viewed separately to understand the process. The Company Balance sheet is shown on pages 39 to 44 which summarieses the assets of Southampton Leisure Holdings Plc. The main assets of SLH Plc are 1) Property (including some investment property) 2) Debts owed to the PLC by subsidiary companies 3) The subsidiary companies themselves. The players registrations are all owned by Southapton Football Club Limited and are an asset of SFC Limited rather than of the PLC. Although some would see this as the PLC effectively owning the player registrations it is important to separate the two companies as in law they are two separate legal entities. I beleive that this is also the basis of our argument for avoiding the points detuction. Southampton Football Club Limited is not in administration and Mr Fry has no direct control over the football club although he can (and has) appointed a director to the board inorder to have indirect influence. When the Administrator sells "the Club" he will in most likelyhood sell the shares in Southampton Football Club Limited. The property can be sold separately and in all likelyhood I expect the debts owed by the subsidiary Companies will probably be written off. Aviva and Barclays will not get all of their money back and secured creditors will get 0p in the £ (or at least very close to depending on the nature of the debentures) Clapham Saint (ACA) Edit: Before anybody starts.....I've spotted a couple of typo type spelling mistakes but can't be bothered to change them Edited 15 April, 2009 by Clapham Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 The BANK appointed the Administrators. HTH Are you sure? I haven't seen the documents filed but it is common for the Bank to "suggest" that the Directors appoint administrators when they withdraw support. If the directors don't they can they find themselves in hot water with regard to wrongful trading and are in effect forced into it. I'm possibly being a bit pedantic but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 The BANK appointed the Administrators. HTH Doesn't the stock market announcement on the 2nd April suggest that the SLH board appointed the administrators though....? Or is it just 'traditional' for an outgoing board to be credited with doing the deed even though it's the bank pulling the strings? http://www.hemscott.com/ir/soo/irEssentials.jsp?item=118942676831344 RNS Number : 0096Q Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC 02 April 2009 2 April 2009 Southampton Leisure Holdings plc ("SLH" or "the Company") Appointment of Administrators The Board announces today that it has appointed Mark Fry and David Hudson of Begbies Traynor (South) LLP as joint administrators to the Company. Rupert Lowe, Andrew Cowen and Michael Wilde have resigned as directors of the Company with immediate effect. Southampton Football Club Limited, a subsidiary of the Company, is unaffected by these insolvency proceedings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 I'm afraid I don't know that one, but I'm sure someone could find out by having a dig around. The way Lowe was talking was that Barclays were pretty happy with their position, so can assume they believe they're either at the front of the queue or in a good position to collect their monies. Again, I don't know this as fact, however... I suspect that Barclays WERE happy with their position becuase the bulk of the Compnay's security was in the form of land/property which until not that long ago was worth a considerable sum and was steadily going up in value. This is no longer the case. These assets are now worth considerably less and are continuing to drop resulting in Barclays losing comfort and seeking to lower their exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Are you sure? I haven't seen the documents filed but it is common for the Bank to "suggest" that the Directors appoint administrators when they withdraw support. If the directors don't they can they find themselves in hot water with regard to wrongful trading and are in effect forced into it. I'm possibly being a bit pedantic but... Well it has been commented on before, and no I ain't any good at trawling through threads on here but yes I am pretty sure on that one Think back also to the logic of it and some of the press statements at the time - a rumoured investor was trying to prove funds (which Fry mentioned) which had caused a delay. I simpy cannot see the directors pulling the plug if they thought the cavalry was round the corner why would they destroy their own shareholder value IF..... it seemed much more logical that the bank got fed up waiting. Also this version fits some of the more intriguing conspiracy theories, emanting from taxi drivers and stewards so I'll stick with my feeling on this as my entry for when we do the next round of TSW's Alpine Memorial "I told you so" awards TBF, there were all sorts of rumours at the time as to who pulled the plug and whether that was real or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Southampton Football Club Limited is not in administration and Mr Fry has no direct control over the football club although he can (and has) appointed a director to the board inorder to have indirect influence. a.k.a. Ken Tointon ? I'm still confused, albeit somewhat rhetorically, as to why the Administrator of Southampton Leisure Holdings is writing the 'view from the boardroom' page in the Southampton Football Club Limited matchday programme? Why isn't one of the Southampton Football Club Limited board members writing the usual 'view from the boardroom' article? I thought the Football Club was operating on a 'Business as Usual' basis at the moment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Although a possible pedantic scenario is that the bank appointed Begbies Taylor not the Board So it is possible the board voted for admin but the main secured creditor made the appointment That would answer both logical inputs HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Well it has been commented on before, and no I ain't any good at trawling through threads on here but yes I am pretty sure on that one LSE announcement pasted above.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Well it has been commented on before, and no I ain't any good at trawling through threads on here but yes I am pretty sure on that one Think back also to the logic of it and some of the press statements at the time - a rumoured investor was trying to prove funds (which Fry mentioned) which had caused a delay. I simpy cannot see the directors pulling the plug if they thought the cavalry was round the corner why would they destroy their own shareholder value IF..... it seemed much more logical that the bank got fed up waiting. Also this version fits some of the more intriguing conspiracy theories, emanting from taxi drivers and stewards so I'll stick with my feeling on this as my entry for when we do the next round of TSW's Alpine Memorial "I told you so" awards TBF, there were all sorts of rumours at the time as to who pulled the plug and whether that was real or not I think you missed the point of my post. I agree with you that the Bank will have been the driving force behind the appoiintment of the Administrators however TECHNICALLY it was the directors who appoiinted them (hence the acknowledgement that I was being pedantic). Also see Trousers post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 a.k.a. Ken Tointon ? I'm still confused, albeit somewhat rhetorically, as to why the Administrator of Southampton Leisure Holdings is writing the 'view from the boardroom' page in the Southampton Football Club Limited matchday programme? Why isn't one of the Southampton Football Club Limited board members writing the usual 'view from the boardroom' article? I thought the Football Club was operating on a 'Business as Usual' basis at the moment? Good point and in my view writing that whilst claiming that the two companies are separate is not the brightest thing that an Insolvency Practitioner has ever done. Unless of course his legal advise was that it was ok... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 Although a possible pedantic scenario is that the bank appointed Begbies Taylor not the Board So it is possible the board voted for admin but the main secured creditor made the appointment That would answer both logical inputs HTH The direcotrs are required to give notice to the Bank before they can appoint administrators. What commonly happens in practice is that the Bank will tell the directors who they want the directors to appoint, the directors then have little choice but to do so. Most banks prefer not to make the actual appointment themselves if they can avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 The BANK appointed the Administrators. HTH Not sure on that one Phil!!!!! Digging through the announcements I think you'll find the Board of teh PLC put us into administration once Barclays started bouncing chequaes. Certainly Barclays actions of bouncing the cheques forced the issue, but I'm sure we put oursleves in to admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 15 April, 2009 Share Posted 15 April, 2009 (edited) "The Group has one main business segment, that of professional football operations. As a result, no additional business segment information is required to be provided." This is what will trigger the 10 point deduction, IMO... Darn, we would have got away with it had we still had the radio station and the insurance company! Darn those pesky kids.....;-) Edited 15 April, 2009 by Frank's cousin teh to the - just for MG (;-)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now