The Last Chance Saloon?

[Guided Missile]

What has to be remembered is that any offer for the club that is short of what is owed to the creditors will require them (ie Barclays, Norwich Union and HMRC) agreeing to accept less, because if the offer is less than the break up value of the club, then these guys will have no, and I mean, no hesitation in forcing Fry into simply liquidating the assets.

This leads me on to the possibility that selling the players to the vultures and St. Mary's to Southampton City Council, may be the contingency plan that Fry is faced with. IMHO an offer that takes the p!$$ may be worse than no offer at all and push us into the unthinkable. Southampton Speedway all over again. Top Dogs one season and Top Rank the next...

[supaimpy_returns]

The selling of SLH asset companies as seperate items has to work in the clubs favour, as it kills SLH, if SLH remains then so do the points deduction, if SLH dies then the FL would find it very difficult to defend the deduction, as legally there will be no need for a CVA and gives a clean sheet.

 

I would expect the offers to be on that basis,why would anyone buy a PLC?

[Nineteen Canteen]

What has to be remembered is that any offer for the club that is short of what is owed to the creditors will require them (ie Barclays, Norwich Union and HMRC) agreeing to accept less, because if the offer is less than the break up value of the club, then these guys will have no, and I mean, no hesitation in forcing Fry into simply liquidating the assets.

This leads me on to the possibility that selling the players to the vultures and St. Mary's to Southampton City Council, may be the contingency plan that Fry is faced with. IMHO an offer that takes the p!$$ may be worse than no offer at all and push us into the unthinkable. Southampton Speedway all over again. Top Dogs one season and Top Rank the next...

 

GM hasn't this been the very real risk from Day 1 and outlined by Clapham Sainst a couple of months ago when some seemed to be championing administration. Now we have HMRC in the mix it could be even worse as negotiation doesn't exist in their vocabulary and their debts a little worse than ours. Start with a sale of all players on a contract, where evry buyer knows your screwed then Jackson's farm, then Staplewood.

 

I'm not sure the council can justify buying the stadium. At least in Hull the stadium supports more than one sport and has a year round revenue stream but everytime I hear someone opine on the subject from the council they seem to be having trouble to reconcile the purchase to themselves let alone justify it to the council tax payers of Southampton.

 

I think any offer that avoids this scenario should be accepted but that's not down to us or Fry.

[Nineteen Canteen]

The selling of SLH asset companies as seperate items has to work in the clubs favour, as it kills SLH, if SLH remains then so do the points deduction, if SLH dies then the FL would find it very difficult to defend the deduction, as legally there will be no need for a CVA and gives a clean sheet.

 

I would expect the offers to be on that basis,why would anyone buy a PLC?

 

I think GM is suggesting that a derisory offer could fail as the creditors will simply suggest liquidation of the assets will raise more revenue. That would result in no club (in my uderstanding) rendering points deductions irrelevant.

[Johnny Bognor]

What has to be remembered is that any offer for the club that is short of what is owed to the creditors will require them (ie Barclays, Norwich Union and HMRC) agreeing to accept less, because if the offer is less than the break up value of the club, then these guys will have no, and I mean, no hesitation in forcing Fry into simply liquidating the assets.

This leads me on to the possibility that selling the players to the vultures and St. Mary's to Southampton City Council, may be the contingency plan that Fry is faced with. IMHO an offer that takes the p!$$ may be worse than no offer at all and push us into the unthinkable. Southampton Speedway all over again. Top Dogs one season and Top Rank the next...

 

I suppose it is down to what the creditors believe is the break up value.

 

Who is up for buying a 32k seater stadium in Soton?

 

What is the realistic value of players when they have no club to play for? (a fully operating club can command more, whereas a liquidator can only take what they can get which will be significantly less than market value - ie the cost of their existing contracts).

 

I would guess that the value of liquidation stock would be pretty low and hence any offers lower than this are probably not worth having anyway?

[Clapham Saint]

What has to be remembered is that any offer for the club that is short of what is owed to the creditors will require them (ie Barclays, Norwich Union and HMRC) agreeing to accept less, because if the offer is less than the break up value of the club, then these guys will have no, and I mean, no hesitation in forcing Fry into simply liquidating the assets.

This leads me on to the possibility that selling the players to the vultures and St. Mary's to Southampton City Council, may be the contingency plan that Fry is faced with. IMHO an offer that takes the p!$$ may be worse than no offer at all and push us into the unthinkable. Southampton Speedway all over again. Top Dogs one season and Top Rank the next...

 

Can't argue with the general principle but I would imagine that the break up value would be pretty low.

 

What happens (and I don't know the answer to this from a football league perspective) to player registrations in the event that the club ceases to trade and goes into liquidation?

 

My guess would be that as employees of the club the squad would all be released and would therefore be worth absolutely nothing to Mr. Fry. Obviously something that he wants to avoid.

 

A liquidator wouldn't be running the club as a business and so there would be no games played. If players weren't allowed to move on frees automatically under fotball league regulations then I would have thought that they would have pretty good grounds for a bosman style court case.

 

Either way this results in no money for Mr. Fry or Barclays/Aviva.

 

In my opinion the price paid for the club is much more likely to be dictated by the consortiums out bidding each other rather than the break up value of the assets.

[Guided Missile]

Who is up for buying a 32k seater stadium in Soton?

 

What is the realistic value of players when they have no club to play for? (a fully operating club can command more, whereas a liquidator can only take what they can get which will be significantly less than market value - ie the cost of their existing contracts).

Norwich Union could simply take possession of the Stadium and with Southampton City Council's cooperation, run it as a community stadium which may well bring in income from non-football events at a level that would provide a better return than writing off £10M in asset value.

If I was them, I would have a forceful meeting with the council and demand permission for 10 or more concerts per year together with assorted events in between.

As my thread suggested, the Top Rank Suite made more money than Southampton Speedway ever did....

[supaimpy_returns]

Well IMHO the sale of the assets is what will get the highest price, hence the 'property developers' hovering, the debt is against SLH , most is the mortgage which unless its been defaulted on isn't due.

I would expect that to be the Plan B for Fry, and probably the way the bidders will put their offers.

If they only bid on the football club and not the other assets as long as its more than Barclays debt then the chances are it'll be accepted, any other debts are probably on 60 day accounts for the day to day running and they would be what RL was attempting to pay with bouncing cheques.

 

yes the football club needs a training ground and a home, but it doesn't need a farm or a PLC, the football clubs only assets are players and the sum total for them probably wouldn't cover the Barclay's debt, however Barclays knew this when they pulled the plug on RL and it has to be remembered they are heavily involved in the premiership and bad publicity such as killing a football club wouldn't do them any favours especially with their current 'community' programme.

[um pahars]

Can't argue with the general principle but I would imagine that the break up value would be pretty low.

 

What happens (and I don't know the answer to this from a football league perspective) to player registrations in the event that the club ceases to trade and goes into liquidation?

 

My guess would be that as employees of the club the squad would all be released and would therefore be worth absolutely nothing to Mr. Fry. Obviously something that he wants to avoid.

 

A liquidator wouldn't be running the club as a business and so there would be no games played. If players weren't allowed to move on frees automatically under fotball league regulations then I would have thought that they would have pretty good grounds for a bosman style court case.

 

Either way this results in no money for Mr. Fry or Barclays/Aviva.

 

In my opinion the price paid for the club is much more likely to be dictated by the consortiums out bidding each other rather than the break up value of the assets.

 

I have to agree in that I think the break up value of the Club would be pretty low. We own the land at Jackson's Farm, a small part of Staplewood (with constraints on it) and of course the land at SMS. None of that is a big number and in particular for SMS you would need to demolish it first!!!!

 

I don't think the assets in the stadium would be worth that much. There's just not that much of a market for second hand stuff from a football stadium and the cost of removal would eat up much of the revenue.

 

And as for our most "valuable assets" (i.e. the players LOL), then like you I believe in liquidation they will just walk away from their contracts.

 

I believe the best bet for the major creditors would be either an upfront settlement with any new consortium or an agreement to trade away the balance with the company being sold as a going concern.

 

What was interesting from The Echo piece was that Crouch had already negotiated some sort of a "holiday"/deferment on the stadium loan (down from £2.4m per annum to £1m per annum), so Norwich Union are up for negotiating!!!

[Gemmel]

What has to be remembered is that any offer for the club that is short of what is owed to the creditors will require them (ie Barclays, Norwich Union and HMRC) agreeing to accept less, because if the offer is less than the break up value of the club, then these guys will have no, and I mean, no hesitation in forcing Fry into simply liquidating the assets.

This leads me on to the possibility that selling the players to the vultures and St. Mary's to Southampton City Council, may be the contingency plan that Fry is faced with. IMHO an offer that takes the p!$$ may be worse than no offer at all and push us into the unthinkable. Southampton Speedway all over again. Top Dogs one season and Top Rank the next...

 

I can't see the creditors getting anywhere near what is owed to them. If the club is liquidated, then the players become free agents and move without fees. Which leaves the assets, as ST Mary's which has a charge over it from Aviva, so any offer they don't find acceptable they can reject and keep it for redevelopment or whatever, Jacksons farm, which is what, all of a million quid without planning permission? And some of the land at Staplewood. .... Add those up and you probably have just covered the administration fees, leaving the creditors with naff all, so i just can't see its in their interests to go down that path.

 

There is also something in the Barclays debt, that UM Pahars mentioned a while ago that still doesnt make sense, in terms of their confidence and position in effectively putting 4 million on the line, by forcing administration. Apart from insuring the debt, could they have done anything else (That we don't know about) to ensure they get paid in full or have first dibs at the pot? If it is insured they won't really care how much in the pound they get from us, if their insurers make up the rest.

That ulimately leaves Aviva, as to get our CVA we only have to get 70% of the total debt agreed by the creditors, so it woldnt really matter if the inland revenue play ball or not.

[Guided Missile]

My guess would be that as employees of the club the squad would all be released and would therefore be worth absolutely nothing to Mr. Fry. Obviously something that he wants to avoid.

You obviously have no idea about the contractual and legal status of professional footballers. They are not employees of the club, FFS. That status is reserved for people that clean the toilets and serve food. They are assets that can be sold in a way that is unlike employees and they are not subject to normal employment rules (ie Tax-free benefit games, etc.)

 

All Barclays has to do is insist that the contracts of players of any value are sold, then they get their money.

 

Norwich Union take possession of the stadium and Jacksons Farm and develop, break up or operate them.

 

End of story...

[um pahars]

You obviously have no idea about the contractual and legal status of professional footballers. They are not employees of the club, FFS. That status is reserved for people that clean the toilets and serve food. They are assets that can be sold in a way that is unlike employees and they are not subject to normal employment rules (ie Tax-free benefit games, etc.)

 

All Barclays has to do is insist that the contracts of players of any value are sold, then they get their money.

 

Norwich Union take possession of the stadium and Jacksons Farm and develop, break up or operate them.

 

End of story...

 

But isn't there an isuue that unless we keep our side of the bargain i.e. paying them on time and being a football team in a league, then doesn;t that invalidate their contracts and they can just walk away????

 

I'm sure there were some clubs where the players just walked away (I think it was Luton so off to have a root around).

[Gemmel]

You obviously have no idea about the contractual and legal status of professional footballers. They are not employees of the club, FFS. That status is reserved for people that clean the toilets and serve food. They are assets that can be sold in a way that is unlike employees and they are not subject to normal employment rules (ie Tax-free benefit games, etc.)

 

All Barclays has to do is insist that the contracts of players of any value are sold, then they get their money.

 

Norwich Union take possession of the stadium and Jacksons Farm and develop, break up or operate them.

 

End of story...

 

But if we went bust before the transfer window opened, surely they have a right to sign a new contract with someone else and if the club / SLH is no longer trading then there's no fees invloved? (That's a question, not a statement)

[benjii]

You obviously have no idea about the contractual and legal status of professional footballers. They are not employees of the club, FFS. That status is reserved for people that clean the toilets and serve food. They are assets that can be sold in a way that is unlike employees and they are not subject to normal employment rules (ie Tax-free benefit games, etc.)

 

All Barclays has to do is insist that the contracts of players of any value are sold, then they get their money.

 

Norwich Union take possession of the stadium and Jacksons Farm and develop, break up or operate them.

 

End of story...

 

Of course they are employees.

 

I don't expect a gracious repsonse. Probabaly some goal-post shifting rant coupled with an insult.

[Clapham Saint]

I have to agree in that I think the break up value of the Club would be pretty low. We own the land at Jackson's Farm, a small part of Staplewood (with constraints on it) and of course the land at SMS. None of that is a big number and in particular for SMS you would need to demolish it first!!!!

 

 

Have the council not indicated that they will not consent to any application for change of use as well?

 

Norwich Union could simply take possession of the Stadium and with Southampton City Council's cooperation, run it as a community stadium which may well bring in income from non-football events at a level that would provide a better return than writing off £10M in asset value.

If I was them, I would have a forceful meeting with the council and demand permission for 10 or more concerts per year together with assorted events in between.

 

Possible maybe but I would have thought only a very very remote possibility. Doing this would involve setting up a new venture, employing managers (or giving profit share away to the council so that they can), ongoing costs from monitoring etc. I would very surprised if they wouldn't prefer a clean break but no doubt we will have to disagree on that one.

 

 

I believe the best bet for the major creditors would be either an upfront settlement with any new consortium or an agreement to trade away the balance with the company being sold as a going concern.

 

What was interesting from The Echo piece was that Crouch had already negotiated some sort of a "holiday"/deferment on the stadium loan (down from £2.4m per annum to £1m per annum), so Norwich Union are up for negotiating!!!

 

Agreed. There will have to be an element of debt forgiveness (in fact I expect a lot).

 

Although Norwich Union hold a number of cards they are not all aces and so there will have to be some give and take.

[Dicko]

The £2M we owe the Inland Revenue is a real worry

 

Corporations like Barclays and Aviva will be prepared to discuss the debt and possible solutions

HMRC are totally callous when it comes to football clubs, they forced Aldershot, Scarborough and Halifax out of business

[Whitey Grandad]

But isn't there an isuue that unless we keep our side of the bargain i.e. paying them on time and being a football team in a league, then doesn;t that invalidate their contracts and they can just walk away????

 

I'm sure there were some clubs where the players just walked away (I think it was Luton so off to have a root around).

I have always understood that to be the case.

[um pahars]

Have the council not indicated that they will not consent to any application for change of use as well?

 

I was privy to the whole SEEDA/City Council plan from the old Meridian site down to Crosshouse Quay and they are/were up for anything goes. Although I just don't think the net cost of the land SMS is on is worth much in the current market (whether they deem it industrial, commercial or residential.

 

Possible maybe but I would have thought only a very very remote possibility. Doing this would involve setting up a new venture, employing managers (or giving profit share away to the council so that they can), ongoing costs from monitoring etc. I would very surprised if they wouldn't prefer a clean break but no doubt we will have to disagree on that one.

 

I also agree in that I just don't think Norwich Union are in that line of business (it's just too much hassle, surely). IMHO they will just want a settlement (as they did at Ipswich) or they will be willing to renegoiate a new position with any new owners.

 

Agreed. There will have to be an element of debt forgiveness (in fact I expect a lot).

 

Although Norwich Union hold a number of cards they are not all aces and so there will have to be some give and take.

 

They were up for taking a hit at Ipswich, and they have shown their willingness to accept a deferral on the "mortgage" payments, so I think they have certainly shown they realise they need to give to a certain degree.

Edited 5 May, 2009 by um pahars

[Professor]

A very realistic thread and a good explanation of why those who have been recommending administration almost since the start of the season simply failed to understand the risks involved. It is too easy to think that the club can do a flight of the Phoenix, free of debt, as Bates tried to do with Leeds - although even he still seems to be bogged down with legal actions. The club may come out of of this, we all hope it will, but the risk that it will not is very real.

[um pahars]

The £2M we owe the Inland Revenue is a real worry

 

Corporations like Barclays and Aviva will be prepared to discuss the debt and possible solutions

HMRC are totally callous when it comes to football clubs, they forced Aldershot, Scarborough and Halifax out of business

 

They will indeed vote against any CVA as they are no longer preferred creditors and therefore object to all footballing debts being in the queue ahead of them.

 

But doesn't their £2m mean that they do not represent enough votes at the CVA to reject it (of course that's assuming Barclays and Aviva as the major creditors being owed more than 75% of the total debt approve one)????

[um pahars]

A very realistic thread and a good explanation of why those who have been recommending administration almost since the start of the season simply failed to understand the risks involved. It is too easy to think that the club can do a flight of the Phoenix, free of debt, as Bates tried to do with Leeds - although even he still seems to be bogged down with legal actions. The club may come out of of this, we all hope it will, but the risk that it will not is very real.

 

Which is exactly why those who led us into Administration this season with some utterly crass decisions should be ashamed of themselves.

[Gemmel]

You obviously have no idea about the contractual and legal status of professional footballers. They are not employees of the club, FFS. That status is reserved for people that clean the toilets and serve food. They are assets that can be sold in a way that is unlike employees and they are not subject to normal employment rules (ie Tax-free benefit games, etc.)

 

For £13 the answers in there, but if you read the summary bit at the bottom, it would suggest you are wrong (ALthough it does go back to the Bosman ruling and obviously finance in football has changed since then)

 

 

http://emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1656150&history=true&StyleSheetView=all

[Clapham Saint]

You obviously have no idea about the contractual and legal status of professional footballers. They are not employees of the club, FFS. That status is reserved for people that clean the toilets and serve food. They are assets that can be sold in a way that is unlike employees and they are not subject to normal employment rules (ie Tax-free benefit games, etc.)

 

All Barclays has to do is insist that the contracts of players of any value are sold, then they get their money.

 

Norwich Union take possession of the stadium and Jacksons Farm and develop, break up or operate them.

 

End of story...

 

Don't be ridiculous.

 

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on football clubs (no doubt you have some specialist knowledge of football employment contracts to go along side the all encompassing insolvency knowledge which you were professing to have a couple of weeks ago, only to later admit that this came down to once having being a shareholder in a company which went into administration ), however I do have some limited experience of dealing with contractors being deemed to be employees. Some factors which were of particlar relevance were:

 

The Company paying Income tax and NIC on the "employee's" behalf

The Company providing the tools of trade

Ability or otherwise of the "employee" to work for a number of other Companies

 

In the case of the relationship between footballers and football clubs I would suggest that these point towards the players being employees.

 

There are other factors but I can't remember them all off the top of my head. I have no doubt that you will be able to trag up 1 which suggests that the players are contractors but I think that the intention of the engagement is clealy that of an employer/employee relationshp.

 

 

But isn't there an isuue that unless we keep our side of the bargain i.e. paying them on time and being a football team in a league, then doesn;t that invalidate their contracts and they can just walk away????

 

Exactly

[Gemmel]

http://www.redcafe.net/f7/riises-wage-slip-174997/

 

Looks like an employee to me

[Clapham Saint]

They will indeed vote against any CVA as they are no longer preferred creditors and therefore object to all footballing debts being in the queue ahead of them.

 

But doesn't their £2m mean that they do not represent enough votes at the CVA to reject it (of course that's assuming Barclays and Aviva as the major creditors being owed more than 75% of the total debt approve one)????

 

For the CVA to be approved 75% (by value) of creditors must vote in favour. In adition 50% of creditors voting and not connected with the Company (i.e. directors, shreholders etc. etc.) must vote in favour.

 

The other factor to consider though is who owes money to HMRC?

 

At the moment SLH is in administration. It is the amounts owed to creditors of SLH which are important to approve a CVA of SLH.

[Clapham Saint]

You obviously have no idea about the contractual and legal status of professional footballers.

 

And why do you always feel the need to be so combative in your choice of language?

 

Asside from the fact that the vast majority of the posts above seem to be in agreement with me and disagreement with you, it is possible to just discuss things sometimes you know.:heart:

[um pahars]

For the CVA to be approved 75% (by value) of creditors must vote in favour. In adition 50% of creditors voting and not connected with the Company (i.e. directors, shreholders etc. etc.) must vote in favour.

 

The other factor to consider though is who owes money to HMRC?

 

At the moment SLH is in administration. It is the amounts owed to creditors of SLH which are important to approve a CVA of SLH.

 

I was aware of the 75% required for approval, but just wondered what the League deemed as breaching their insolvency policy??

 

Is it only breached if the CVA is rejected (and more than 25% vote against it)??

 

Or is it just if the HMRC or anyone objects to it??

 

As for whether it's SLH's or SFC Ltd's CVA, then in my mind I believe just as the League have bent the rules to catch SFC Ltd even though it's the PLC that is in administration, then they won't care whose CVA it is!!!

[ottery st mary]

Clapham Saint....I for one of many posters enjoy your posts....Many thanks for all your efforts and hard work on behalf of this forum....You have given such good info on the subject. Keep up the good work. Your football knowledge is okay...Only joking.

[Guided Missile]

For £13 the answers in there, but if you read the summary bit at the bottom, it would suggest you are wrong

"The court decided that it is a breach of European law for clubs to demand a transfer fee in respect of a player at the end of his contract"

 

I was talking about the players that are currently under contract with SFC who, apparently, are not in administration. For them, the administrator can demand a transfer fee...

[Clapham Saint]

One other thought....

 

A creditor can appeal against a CVA which has been approved on the basis that it is "manifestly unfair".

 

HMRC might be able to claim this depending on the circumstances...

 

I was aware of the 75% required for approval, but just wondered what the League deemed as breaching their insolvency policy??

 

Is it only breached if the CVA is rejected (and more than 25% vote against it)??

 

Or is it just if the HMRC or anyone objects to it??

 

As for whether it's SLH's or SFC Ltd's CVA, then in my mind I believe just as the League have bent the rules to catch SFC Ltd even though it's the PLC that is in administration, then they won't care whose CVA it is!!!

 

My understanding (although I have been wrong about F.A. rules in the past) is that there is an additional points deduction should administration not be exited via a CVA.

 

Usually clubs are unable to exit via a CVA becuase HMRC block them.

 

If SLH does not owe any money to HMRC then they will not be able to block and SLH will be able to exit Administration via a CVA thereby avoiding the points deduction regardless of the FA considering the holding co and company to be linked.

[Weston Saint]

HMRC is not a problem at present.

[Clapham Saint]

"The court decided that it is a breach of European law for clubs to demand a transfer fee in respect of a player at the end of his contract"

 

I was talking about the players that are currently under contract with SFC who, apparently, are not in administration. For them, the administrator can demand a transfer fee...

 

Until either:

 

The club goes into administration and as EMPLOYEES they are released

 

or

 

(the fictional scenario of) SFC Limited fail to pay the contracted payments and they walk away due to breach on contract.

[Guided Missile]

And why do you always feel the need to be so combative in your choice of language?

 

Asside from the fact that the vast majority of the posts above seem to be in agreement with me and disagreement with you, it is possible to just discuss things sometimes you know.:heart:

Don't think that the fact that most people agreeing with you makes it right. Most of the brainless posters on here thought Wilde was the best thing that ever happened to Saints and that includes your bum chum Um Pahars.

I get my information on the status of professional footballers from a good mate of mine, an ex-pro. Take it from me, footballers and their contracts are nothing like any employee you have come across. It's like saying "The Artist Formally Known as Prince" was an employee of Sony.

[Gemmel]

"The court decided that it is a breach of European law for clubs to demand a transfer fee in respect of a player at the end of his contract"

 

I was talking about the players that are currently under contract with SFC who, apparently, are not in administration. For them, the administrator can demand a transfer fee...

 

Gm, it might well be you are right, i don't know enough about it, but if we can't sell them ahead of the transfer window and we are liquidated before then, who is going to recieve a fee? We would be in breech of contract, if we hadn't paid them and i just can't see why they wouldn't be allowed to sign on for someone else.

 

Also right at the bottom of that article....

 

‘If someone regards players as a merchandise with a monetary value, whose value may in some cases even be included in the balance sheet, he does so at his own risk

[Johnny Bognor]

"The court decided that it is a breach of European law for clubs to demand a transfer fee in respect of a player at the end of his contract"

 

I was talking about the players that are currently under contract with SFC who, apparently, are not in administration. For them, the administrator can demand a transfer fee...

 

 

But what happens if other clubs hold out on buying them? Will the creditors continue to pay their inflated wages as a non-operating football club won't be able to? What then happens when they don't get paid (are their contracts then null and void and thus worthless)?

 

The contracts, not the players, are assets and surely they become worthless if those contracts are not honoured.

[Clapham Saint]

Don't think that the fact that most people agreeing with you makes it right. Most of the brainless posters on here thought Wilde was the best thing that ever happened to Saints and that includes your bum chum Um Pahars.

I get my information on the status of professional footballers from a good mate of mine, an ex-pro. Take it from me, footballers and their contracts are nothing like any employee you have come across. It's like saying "The Artist Formally Known as Prince" was an employee of Sony.

 

No it isn't.

 

"The Artist Formally Known as Prince" will have been engaged to produce x no. of albums within x years. (plus some promotional obligations, extras for concert gates etc). He can then go and write/compose/whatever under his own direction.

 

A footballer is engaged to turn up to work on set days, take direct instruction in a formal manner from other employees (i.e. coaches, manager) etc etc.

[Guided Missile]

Until either:

 

The club goes into administration and as EMPLOYEES they are released

 

or

 

(the fictional scenario of) SFC Limited fail to pay the contracted payments and they walk away due to breach on contract.

1. SFC aren't in administration.
   
2. I can't see, for instance, David McGoldrick's contract costing, let's say, £5,000 a week, being broken, in anticipation of a £1M plus transfer fee.
   

Get real, Clapham. How many f***ing employees of any company that you've been involved in, have been valued under intangible assets?????

 

You haven't got a Scoobie, let's face it....

[Guided Missile]

A footballer is engaged to turn up to work on set days, take direct instruction in a formal manner from other employees (i.e. coaches, manager) etc etc.

Total boll ox...

[Clapham Saint]

But what happens if other clubs hold out on buying them? Will the creditors continue to pay their inflated wages as a non-operating football club won't be able to? What then happens when they don't get paid (are their contracts then null and void and thus worthless)?

 

The contracts, not the players, are assets and surely they become worthless if those contracts are not honoured.

 

Exactly.

 

Even if the players aren't employees (which I still beleive that they legally are) Barclays Aviva will not continue to fund £500k a month in the hope of the posibility of selling players at a profit. Especially as clubs can just wait for them to give up. As of course could players who would then be able to negotiate better contracts with their new clubs not having to pay a transfer fee.

 

Which ever way you try to analyse it this the idea that players can be sold off in a break up scenario doesn't work.

[Clapham Saint]

Total boll ox...

 

Becuase?

 

Are you saying players can do what they want, show up when they want as long as they play on a Saturday?

[Clapham Saint]

1. SFC aren't in administration.
   
2. I can't see, for instance, David McGoldrick's contract costing, let's say, £5,000 a week, being broken, in anticipation of a £1M plus transfer fee.
   

Get real, Clapham. How many f***ing employees of any company that you've been involved in, have been valued under intangible assets?????

 

You haven't got a Scoobie, let's face it....

 

The players aren't valued under intangible assets at saints. Player registrations are. Do you honestly beleive that these can continue to be valid in the event that they are not being paid or the club ceases to trade?

 

As for your other points:

 

1) No they aren't. My words were "until the club goes into administration" i.e. a future event. Either way, in the scenario that you envisage the Club (SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED) would need to be placed into either Administration or Liquidation. (Unless of course you are suggesting that it continue to be run as a going concern whilst this sale of the centuary is conducted?

 

2) Except that we wouldn't be able to get £1m for him. Other clubs, knowing the situation would only make derisory offers and DMG himself would be an idiot not to refuse to sign for anyone else until he was allowed to move on a free thereby being able to negotiate a better contract.

 

The chances of getting a proper fee for a player would hinge on a) a club being stupid enough to offer a sizable fee AND b) the player being badly advised enough to not hold out for a free transfer.

 

This is highly unlikely.

 

On this basis nobody is going to fund the salaries on the off chance that this comes off.

 

I do know what I'm talking about as I understand how these decisions are made and make them regularly myself.

 

You on the otherhand refuse to accept (yet again) that anybody can validly question anything you post rather than revearing it as nailed on fact.

[lordswoodsaints]

But isn't there an isuue that unless we keep our side of the bargain i.e. paying them on time and being a football team in a league, then doesn;t that invalidate their contracts and they can just walk away????

 

I'm sure there were some clubs where the players just walked away (I think it was Luton so off to have a root around).

 

Isn't that what happened at Weymouth? They all agreed to not play and then most of them walked away into another club forcing the owners to field a team of youth players.

[Whitey Grandad]

I would expect that the players are on fixed-term contracts for 'the performance of certain services'. That would save on the NI and pension contributions.

[SFC Forever]

Weymouth have been sliding down the conference since they went broke and couldn't pay their players. The team has been kept going partly by kids younger than ours. If a player doesn't get paid he is free to walk as has happened in a few places in recent years. So now you can slag me off GM as that seems the only approach you know how to use. I'm big enough to take it so don't worry about upsetting me. Radio Hampshire has often spoken about their plight in the match day broadcasts. The club will possibly fold soon but who cares? Just another case to a lot I imagine, but not to their fans or players.

[RoswellSaint]

The £2M we owe the Inland Revenue is a real worry

 

Corporations like Barclays and Aviva will be prepared to discuss the debt and possible solutions

HMRC are totally callous when it comes to football clubs, they forced Aldershot, Scarborough and Halifax out of business

 

HMRC is not a problem at present.

 

This owing £2M to IR/HMRC has come up over the last day or so but WS says there is no problem. Where did the £2M rumour come from?

[SaintBobby]

Total boll ox...

 

 

GM, what is you're understanding of the circumstances in which the Saints players and/or their registration with SFC become worthless as assets?

 

I don't profess to know the detail, but believe Clapham Saint is basically right.

 

If SLH is smashed up - and its assets effectively put under the hammer at auction - I don't believe this would include ANY of the players.

 

My understanding is that they would be released form their contracts and become free agents - but even if they didn't, they are hardly assets which can just be flogged off to the highest bidder (in the way that Jacksons Farm or Staplewood would be).

 

If....to develop the McGoldrick example...Notts Forest offer £500,000 for him and Swansea offer three quid, but DMcG himself says he is not willing to play for Notts Forest, well then, we only get three quid for him. We can't force players to go to the highest bidder.

 

Even assuming that the players would remain assets of the club/company (which I doubt), their value would be virtually zero.

[aberdare]

HMRC is not a problem at present.

 

Not my understanding, unless you choose to ignore the injuns coming over the hill and think/hope the problem will go away.

 

The only reason I believe HMRC is not an issue to day is timing. I think the expression would be "tick tock", and come May 19th (PAYE) the sticky hits the fan assuming that the payments due April 19th have of course been made, let alone those due March 19th..... size in this instance doesn't matter.

[ghq]

Let's just for a moment suppose that GM could be right in his assumptions. We undeniably have a supply and demand situation not fairly loaded towards the supply side.

This is already apparent re Dyer and Swansea. The going price halved by the latest offer.

Mind you that may well be Swansea being mean and all other clubs will offer over the odds to help the creditors out. 'Yeah,Right.' as the kids would say.

[Stirchleysaint]

Its my understanding that in the event of a club going under, all player registrations return to the Football League effectively making them free agents. These cannot be sold as part of the liquidation process. The next couple of weeks are going to be tense.

[politico]

This is relavent to all fans-not just saints, and only started yesterday.

 

Please have a look and spread the word!

 

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/football-fans-message-to-the-fa.html