Fitzhugh Fella Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 according to the Guardian who say "The consortium leading the race to buy Southampton has been given until Monday to secure a deal for the south coast club. (Begbies Traynor) said last night the deadline for the group to provide financial guarantees had been extended until the beginning of next week" So it wasn't the haggling holding things up it was Pinnacle not "providing financial guarantees" - that is a worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefuriousb Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Though it still clearly remains the preferred option/bid? So may be it either isn't that much of a worry, or its not about financial guarantees? There are no direct quotes saying what the guardian report after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 (edited) according to the Guardian who say "The consortium leading the race to buy Southampton has been given until Monday to secure a deal for the south coast club. (Begbies Traynor) said last night the deadline for the group to provide financial guarantees had been extended until the beginning of next week" So it wasn't the haggling holding things up it was Pinnacle not "providing financial guarantees" - that is a worry. I knew you could post some interesting stuff. Let us hope it is just the lawyers sorting out the fine print but as it is only the preferred bidder stage you maybe right More positive on the Echo Website http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4373926.Nailbiting_drama/ Edited 16 May, 2009 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvictaSaint Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 I thought that proof of funds had already been provided well before this stage. Surely this is just sloppy journalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 16 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 16 May, 2009 I thought that proof of funds had already been provided well before this stage. Surely this is just sloppy journalism? Well they are quoting Begbies from last night so I assume they are merely reporting what they were told then. I have copied down the exact words from the Guardian. I guess we will have to see if the Echo say the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 would have thought that whoever wanted to buy us would have made sure they had the money before entering into all the nitty gritty stuff and Fry checking they had the funds etc? .....Or is that just too easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Well they are quoting Begbies from last night. if they are quoting Begbies, why cannot a full interview be reported on the OS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modern matron Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 according to the Guardian who say "The consortium leading the race to buy Southampton has been given until Monday to secure a deal for the south coast club. (Begbies Traynor) said last night the deadline for the group to provide financial guarantees had been extended until the beginning of next week" So it wasn't the haggling holding things up it was Pinnacle not "providing financial guarantees" - that is a worry. Does this mean that Fry will proceed with the "other" bid after Monday passes if Pinnacle cannot satisfy him with their financial guarantees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Well they are quoting Begbies from last night so I assume they are merely reporting what they were told then. I have copied down the exact words from the Guardian. I guess we will have to see if the Echo say the same. which it will, they will just lift it from there :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 I thought that proof of funds had already been provided well before this stage. Surely this is just sloppy journalism? I'm a little confused as well, I also thought this was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tttdcs Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 I thought that proof of funds had already been provided well before this stage. Surely this is just sloppy journalism? This is SFC remember it is bound to go t'ts up at the last minute.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 16 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 16 May, 2009 would have thought that whoever wanted to buy us would have made sure they had the money before entering into all the nitty gritty stuff and Fry checking they had the funds etc? .....Or is that just too easy It doesn't add up Mike, I agree but it deffo says "the deadline to prove financial guarantees had been extended until the beginning of next week". Sloppy journalism or a worrying development? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Tbh none of the Bidders inspire me or fill me with confidence..........I just don't think they have the money to make us anymore than a crap club in a crap league. If I were fry I would hang on a bit and see what the 'foreign' group have to offer.......it could be that they turn us into the richest club in the league but just need a bit of time to get it together. I would be ****ed off if the pinnacle bid was accepted only to find that there was a better bid just a few hours away but then again I would be equally ****ed off if the pinnacle bid failed and it opened the door for marc Jackson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 which it will, they will just lift it from there :-) The Echo says that the holdup is a delay in Pinnacle signing a legal contract which commits them to paying a £500K non-returnable deposit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvictaSaint Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Well they are quoting Begbies from last night so I assume they are merely reporting what they were told then. I have copied down the exact words from the Guardian. I guess we will have to see if the Echo say the same. Clutching at straws here Duncan (!), but it does appear to be a report rather than a direct quotation so I am slightly more optimistic. You can't help but love the Grauniad but liberal reporting has always been their forte. Still hopeful..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 according to the Guardian who say "The consortium leading the race to buy Southampton has been given until Monday to secure a deal for the south coast club. (Begbies Traynor) said last night the deadline for the group to provide financial guarantees had been extended until the beginning of next week" So it wasn't the haggling holding things up it was Pinnacle not "providing financial guarantees" - that is a worry. For those of us in the Saints Web Forum 'F5' club....any idea whenther this means 00:01, 17:00 or 23:59 on Monday?! cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Duncan, do you think this is just an admin/legalese hold up, or do you think the poeple involved just don't have the money to do the deal. I hope it's not a case of Marcjacksonitis, I heard it was as catching as swine flu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 is this the Guardian hard copy? there is just a report from yesterday on site at mo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 p.s. will they be continuing talks over the weekend or does this mean they are adjourning until Monday? Ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 The Echo says that the holdup is a delay in Pinnacle signing a legal contract which commits them to paying a £500K non-returnable deposit... The key thing being whether they "can't" sign it or "won't" sign it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 kind of makes the proof of funds a bit of a joke doesnt it? 1st stage - show interest 2nd stage - prove you have the wonga 3rd stage - convince the administrator your the best offer 4th stage - provide gaurentee's that you have the wonga whats the point of the 2nd stage even being there when the 4th stage seems to be the important one? why not have a set figure that you expect perspective buyers to have before they come sit at the table? company worth 40 million up for grabs should have possible buyers turn up with proof of at least 10 million available before they are alloud in the door. If pinnicle are the perfered bidders and yet they are having trouble proving funds i dont hold out much hope should we have to drop back to the fall back plan of LLS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 The Echo says that the holdup is a delay in Pinnacle signing a legal contract which commits them to paying a £500K non-returnable deposit... Maybe Fry should have bought himself more time by throwing down the gauntlet last week instead of yesterday. Doesn't a deal have to be sorted out by wages day? Our Administrator is flying pretty close to the sun. I hope he doesn't get burnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 which it will, they will just lift it from here:-) ive corrected it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 It doesn't add up Mike, I agree but it deffo says "the deadline to prove financial guarantees had been extended until the beginning of next week". Sloppy journalism or a worrying development? the latter i fear :-( Still dont understand why we do things so backwards in this country! I would, for example, say to all the interested parties, "show me the money" etc etc before going down the due dilligance and NDA road Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Tbh none of the Bidders inspire me or fill me with confidence..........I just don't think they have the money to make us anymore than a crap club in a crap league. If I were fry I would hang on a bit and see what the 'foreign' group have to offer.......it could be that they turn us into the richest club in the league but just need a bit of time to get it together. I would be ****ed off if the pinnacle bid was accepted only to find that there was a better bid just a few hours away but then again I would be equally ****ed off if the pinnacle bid failed and it opened the door for marc Jackson. but we could also keep waiting for F all to happen. If pinnicle and MJ are our only hope and we wait for someone better what will we do when those 2 walk away? id rather have a crap club going no where than no club at all i think :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 ive corrected it for you haha well spotted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 kind of makes the proof of funds a bit of a joke doesnt it? 1st stage - show interest 2nd stage - prove you have the wonga 3rd stage - convince the administrator your the best offer 4th stage - provide gaurentee's that you have the wonga whats the point of the 2nd stage even being there when the 4th stage seems to be the important one? why not have a set figure that you expect perspective buyers to have before they come sit at the table? company worth 40 million up for grabs should have possible buyers turn up with proof of at least 10 million available before they are alloud in the door. If pinnicle are the perfered bidders and yet they are having trouble proving funds i dont hold out much hope should we have to drop back to the fall back plan of LLS. I dont think it unreasonable for Pinnacle to carefully look at the conract to give before giving £500000 non refundable they are probably looking for guarantees of what information has been provided so far by the administrators is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 I dont think it unreasonable for Pinnacle to carefully look at the conract to give before giving £500000 non refundable they are probably looking for guarantees of what information has been provided so far by the administrators is correct. fair enough if thats what the stumbling block is but reading what FF has put it does sound more like general proof of funds which at this stage I would have thought is maddness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 fair enough if thats what the stumbling block is but reading what FF has put it does sound more like general proof of funds which at this stage I would have thought is maddness. That was from the Guardian I think according to one poster the Echo has a slightly different slant. Lets hope it is just a blip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 16 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 16 May, 2009 is this the Guardian hard copy? there is just a report from yesterday on site at mo! Hard copy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicko Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 I'm starting to get worried now, so much so, I wouldn't even moan if Rupert made a late bid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 I'm starting to get worried now, so much so, I wouldn't even moan if Rupert made a late bid If there was little chance of the deal going through I think they may have stopped talks but as the process is continuing surely that is positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 according to the Guardian who say "The consortium leading the race to buy Southampton has been given until Monday to secure a deal for the south coast club. (Begbies Traynor) said last night the deadline for the group to provide financial guarantees had been extended until the beginning of next week" So it wasn't the haggling holding things up it was Pinnacle not "providing financial guarantees" - that is a worry. Does it say which Monday ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 I'm starting to get worried now, so much so, I wouldn't even moan if Rupert made a late bid As well as being in the background re Jackson's ....???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manji Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 which it will, they will just lift it from there :-) lol ! It must be easy being an Echo "journalist"............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 p.s. will they be continuing talks over the weekend or does this mean they are adjourning until Monday? Ta Anyone 'ITK' on the above question? The answer is fairly crucial as it will determine how I spend my weekend! I can't believe they would halt the talks over the weekend given the tight timescales....would they....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Don't worry. When Pinnacle's forensic accountants have finished there will be investment.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Don't worry. When Pinnacle's forensic accountants have finished there will be investment.... Are they working on this scrutiny over the weekend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Posted the problem on page 9,752 of D Day thread It's been discussed on here that there is no warranty that the information supplied to Pinnacle by Begbies is correct in regard to liabilities and contracts, so full "due dilligence" is required. IF Pinnacle were made a preferred bidder last week they would have been doing this, but that doesn't appear to have happened as Pinnacle would have incurred a lot of cost and could have been "gazumped" during their 2nd round of due dilligence. Fry likely needs a non-refundable deposit on Monday, to pay the wages, the deal is likely down to who has the cheque book out for that first. As I said before paying 400k or so as a non refundable deposit with no guarantee there is nothing nasty still to be found is a big step Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 As I said before paying 400k or so as a non refundable deposit with no guarantee there is nothing nasty still to be found is a big step That is no problem for a lawyer and normal practice when buying a company. You simply adjust the offer price for any material change in the value of the assets between exchange of contracts, payment of deposit and completion. The problem is the money, IMHO, not the audited accounts of a plc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Monkey Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 How do they show proof of their funds? Show Fry a bank statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 I'm sure MLT meant well when he hooked up with Pinnacle, but we all know which road is paved with good intentions... Are Pinnacle potless, are they tyre-kickers or are they just screwing down the best possible deal they can? I hope it's the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 It doesn't add up Mike, I agree but it deffo says "the deadline to prove financial guarantees had been extended until the beginning of next week". Sloppy journalism or a worrying development? And if this is the 'preferred bid' - what does it say about the others?! Worrying indeed, if they can't satisfactorily prove their financial guarantees for the club purchase, what does it say about their ability to invest in the future? I was really hoping this "mystery foreign bid" (as mentioned by Echo) might come to light, but it seems Pinnacle are still the #1 option at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 but we could also keep waiting for F all to happen. If pinnicle and MJ are our only hope and we wait for someone better what will we do when those 2 walk away? id rather have a crap club going no where than no club at all i think :confused: Agreed, at least it gives the chance for someone else to come in and buy us again when we're "back on our feet"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabel Healey Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 would have thought that whoever wanted to buy us would have made sure they had the money before entering into all the nitty gritty stuff and Fry checking they had the funds etc? .....Or is that just too easy I would agree Mike, and I expect it starts that way:- ie " A consortium provides proof of funds". But when they get into detailed negotiations, I would imagine all the problems surface in different ways. Eg:- Creiditors, Shareholders, Bank/Insurance Companies, HMRC, The Football League, Ground complications all wanting to be "first", and not all of it entirely negotiable ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 There is no difference between "providing financial guarantees" or "sorting out the small print", either way you are not going to commit any sizable amount of money until you are getting the deal you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostBoys Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Very worrying. There have been some threads which included scepticism about the financial ability of Pinnancle based on their man fronting it up. Surely they have agreed a deal by now as there appears to be no opposition certainly not from the other jokers complaining in the press and the two pillocks striding in from Guernsey with no money. It appears that they cannot find the money either in terms of a deposit or bank guarantee - whatever has been demanded. They have had ample time to get their funds in place and so I have to fear the worst. I hope I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Just wondering if financial guarantees might mean something else than just having the money. I've heard mention that a certain amount is to be paid for the club, then further money later. The guarantees could be about making it absolutely concrete about when and how much will be paid at these times. Perhaps the terms of this weren't agred on both sides and guarantees need to be put in place about the conditions. I dunno though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stirchleysaint Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Isn't the £500k for keeping the club going by paying wages? Surely if they want to buy the club, they need to honour football contracts as part of the Golden Share requirement which will be the largest proportion of the £500k. All wage contracts run until June 30th so this will be a higher figure until July. If we don't pay these wages, functioning as a football club becomes more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 I would agree Mike, and I expect it starts that way:- ie " A consortium provides proof of funds". But when they get into detailed negotiations, I would imagine all the problems surface in different ways. Eg:- Creiditors, Shareholders, Bank/Insurance Companies, HMRC, The Football League, Ground complications all wanting to be "first", and not all of it entirely negotiable ?? yes i see your point. Interesting 1st post by the way 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