OldNick Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 (edited) as per saintalan on another thread, posting it up for him http://saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11766 Edited 19 May, 2009 by OldNick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladysaint Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Was just going to post that as well. When they mention shares in the club do they mean the plc shares, sorry may be a bit of silly question but I thought the PLC was now defunct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 At least he is still talking allegedly!!! Interesting that an exclusivity deal was signed....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Majestic Channon Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 M.J. it is then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saf... Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 so the waiting game goes on... hoorah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Dear Mods, could we PLEASE have an automatic infraction for anyone continuing the who is most to blame from the old guard arguments on THIS thread, so we can keep this for prayers, messages of hope or information on where to send flowers if it doesn't work out Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 The keyword here is patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Who are Smithfield? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintalan Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 as per saintalan on another thread, posting it up for him http://saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11766 Thanks nickh Dear Mods, could we PLEASE have an automatic infraction for anyone continuing the who is most to blame from the old guard arguments on THIS thread, so we can keep this for prayers, messages of hope or information on where to send flowers if it doesn't work out Thanks Seconded, cant we just have a sticky called the Blame Game or something, I am just looking for news not others squabbles. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 (edited) Was just going to post that as well. When they mention shares in the club do they mean the plc shares, sorry may be a bit of silly question but I thought the PLC was now defunct. It did say club but I agree it was not clear regarding shares as I did not realise the club had shares Edited 19 May, 2009 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Dear Mods, could we PLEASE have an automatic infraction for anyone continuing the who is most to blame from the old guard arguments on THIS thread, so we can keep this for prayers, messages of hope or information on where to send flowers if it doesn't work out Thanks I agree this is now the really serious time in the clubs history and it should be respectful.What flowers are the most apt to lay at the clubs door? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Same **** coming out on a different day, talking of which the picture of him on the OS, face looks like he has just shat his pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 So they signed the exclusivity agreement without meeting its requirements. Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Same **** coming out on a different day, talking of which the picture of him on the OS, face looks like he has just shat his pants. Fry's Chocolate Cream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 I agree this is now the really serious time in the clubs history and it should be respectful.What flowers are the most apt to lay at the clubs door? Black lilies!! I do like the thought of having a prayer thread!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Was just going to post that as well. When they mention shares in the club do they mean the plc shares, sorry may be a bit of silly question but I thought the PLC was now defunct. It means shares in SFC, not SLH; in other words, buying the football club from what remains of the plc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Who are Smithfield? I don't know who smithfield are, but smithfield is the place where terrorists such as William Wallace and Wat Tyler were executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 (edited) Was just going to post that as well. When they mention shares in the club do they mean the plc shares, sorry may be a bit of silly question but I thought the PLC was now defunct. Basically the shares are no longer tradable in the traditional sense as they have no value. However, as I understand it, the first and most desirable option is for the 'shares' to be sold for a nominal value (£1 for the lot) to a new owner on the understanding that they have provided guarrantees to all creditors to an agreed value (eg 30p in the pound). If this can be done, in effect, the new owners take over all assets but the new company would be a ltd company and no longer listed. If this is not possible SLH will be liquidated and its assets sold to the highest bidders to max the return to creditors. I think maybe our situation is complicated by the fact that maybe certain of the parties were already trying to only purchase certain assets susch as SMS etc or just the club. Edited 19 May, 2009 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Who are Smithfield? Lawyers working for teh club on behalf of BT I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incongruous Monk Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 SFC has shares, they're not publicly traded though. SLH is the sole owner of all shares in SFC. Selling SFC involves selling all of the shares (currently held by SLH) to another party. By "all of" this may only mean 1 share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 SFC has shares, they're not publicly traded though. SLH is the sole owner of all shares in SFC. Selling SFC involves selling all of the shares (currently held by SLH) to another party. By "all of" this may only mean 1 share. Another possibilty, but could also mean as above? Ideally I still think Fry would want to sell the whole package as it provides potentially the biggest return and also form our perspective keeping hold of SMS and staplewood would be a big bonus for rebuilding the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Another possibilty' date=' but could also mean as above? Ideally I still think Fry would want to sell the whole package as it provides potentially the biggest return and also form our perspective keeping hold of SMS and staplewood would be a big bonus for rebuilding the future.[/quote'] Thats if there is anybody left out there to buy us!!!! The outgoings are quite a liability and whilst they will drop, I get the impression the downside is too much for them to take us on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 The comment about the shares was discussed after the forum match in the pub. I apologise for a slightly hazy recollection, but I believe that by selling the shares and keeping SFC LTD operating is part of a suggested strategy that under UK law helps to show the SLH admin is independent from SFC Ltd. Legal council had been giving advice, it was suggested in the bar (oops pub) that this makes the possible costs of admin (hence the amount Fry needs) higher, but then avoids any risks of extra points deductions and helps the possibility of a technical appeal against the deduction. I of course bow to our resident experts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 as per saintalan on another thread, posting it up for him http://saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11766 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Sadly the Saints version only has snakes..in more ways than 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 So they signed the exclusivity agreement without meeting its requirements. Hmm. Isn't that the first rule of the tyre kickers charter? Get as far as you can without actually meeting any requirements at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonToo Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Thats if there is anybody left out there to buy us!!!! The outgoings are quite a liability and whilst they will drop, I get the impression the downside is too much for them to take us on By outgoings do you mean wages? If so, the solution is for the players concerned to cancel their contracts and move on. If they stay and SFC folds, they're stuffed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Sadly the Saints version only HAD snakes..in more ways than 1 There changed it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Basically the shares are no longer tradable in the traditional sense as they have no value. However, as I understand it, the first and most desirable option is for the 'shares' to be sold for a nominal value (£1 for the lot) to a new owner on the understanding that they have provided guarrantees to all creditors to an agreed value (eg 30p in the pound). If this can be done, in effect, the new owners take over all assets but the new company would be a ltd company and no longer listed. If this is not possible SLH will be liquidated and its assets sold to the highest bidders to max the return to creditors. I think maybe our situation is complicated by the fact that maybe certain of the parties were already trying to only purchase certain assets susch as SMS etc or just the club. In practical terms (unless there is a specific FA regulations based reason for doing the above that I don't know about) you wouldn't do this. It is much cleaner to just by the shares of SFC Ltd and leave all the old debt behind for the administrator to deal with. Mr. Fry will have been talking about the shares on SFC Ltd or potentially even selling the club (not the company but the club that is run by SFC Ltd) to a brand new company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancelot link Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Isn't that the first rule of the tyre kickers charter? Get as far as you can without actually meeting any requirements at all call me an optimist but the quote actually says "not yet" met the requirements...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 May, 2009 By outgoings do you mean wages? If so, the solution is for the players concerned to cancel their contracts and move on. If they stay and SFC folds, they're stuffed anyway.The players have contracts and so if the club is alive they get paid if it folds they walk and get signing on fees elsewhere.In the main they will be happy for us to fold.They can kiss the badge elsewhere and still live the life.Some will be saddened but still will be better off.Forget not they have agents who will be looking after tehmselves and will not consider losin g a penny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 . If they stay and SFC folds, they're stuffed anyway. Ay, but not yet, still might get a couple more paydays out of us or the PFA. Longer they stay with us the bigger bonuses they'll get from a new club. Anyway they're all on holiday so no time for find new clubs and stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 May, 2009 In practical terms (unless there is a specific FA regulations based reason for doing the above that I don't know about) you wouldn't do this. It is much cleaner to just by the shares of SFC Ltd and leave all the old debt behind for the administrator to deal with. Mr. Fry will have been talking about the shares on SFC Ltd or potentially even selling the club (not the company but the club that is run by SFC Ltd) to a brand new company. CS can you drop all your other business and get your priorities right and just keep posting on here. We need your views and assessments of the ongoing saga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 call me an optimist but the quote actually says "not yet" met the requirements...... It actually says "not yet been able to satisfy the conditions" of the exclusivity agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 The comment about the shares was discussed after the forum match in the pub. I apologise for a slightly hazy recollection, but I believe that by selling the shares and keeping SFC LTD operating is part of a suggested strategy that under UK law helps to show the SLH admin is independent from SFC Ltd. Legal council had been giving advice, it was suggested in the bar (oops pub) that this makes the possible costs of admin (hence the amount Fry needs) higher, but then avoids any risks of extra points deductions and helps the possibility of a technical appeal against the deduction. I of course bow to our resident experts My expert opinion was that was definitely a bar rather than a pub. Did you see a dart board or horse brasses? No. As for the Reflex afterwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tac-tics Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 I'm ****ing sick and tired of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchen Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 I don't know who smithfield are, but smithfield is the place where terrorists such as William Wallace and Wat Tyler were executed. Wat Tyler was a freedom fighter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Russ Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Fry's Chocolate Cream. Lol. If these interested foreign investors are Turkish, would it be Fry's Turkish Delight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 May, 2009 My expert opinion was that was definitely a bar rather than a pub. Did you see a dart board or horse brasses? No. As for the Reflex afterwards Baj certainly put a few over the bar in the warm up..............oh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Wat Tyler was a freedom fighter! And he wasn't executed, he was killed in a rix with the Mayor of London and some other bloke.It was at Smithfield though, the young King Richard was holding some sort of meeting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Kirstie Provan seems a game girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 My expert opinion was that was definitely a bar rather than a pub. Did you see a dart board or horse brasses? No. As for the Reflex afterwards :drinkers::partyman: OK I was making sure nobody thought I was talking legalese - you know counsel and bar... But may not be a bad time to start looking for which one to go to this evening Or not as the case may be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Russ Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 And he wasn't executed, he was killed in a rix with the Mayor of London and some other bloke.It was at Smithfield though, the young King Richard was holding some sort of meeting there. I thought Watt Tyler was one of the leaders of the Peasant Revolt, whose 'army' met the Kings army near London. Everything was going cordially between the King and Tyler, until one of the King's aids thought he'd move negotiations along a bit by sticking a rather nasty dagger into Tylers soft bits, thus ending the Revolt! History was never my strong subject though. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 In practical terms (unless there is a specific FA regulations based reason for doing the above that I don't know about) you wouldn't do this. It is much cleaner to just by the shares of SFC Ltd and leave all the old debt behind for the administrator to deal with. Mr. Fry will have been talking about the shares on SFC Ltd or potentially even selling the club (not the company but the club that is run by SFC Ltd) to a brand new company. BUt surely if you buy teh club you need to buy a stadium and ideally staplewood which leaves little else - also there is the moral or ethical perspective by taking on the debt and agreeing terms of a CVA its better than simply stumping up a fee and walking away leaving the Administrator to divy up funds - also as I understand it Aviva have firts dabs at SMS because of the loan notes are secured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncoboy Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Wat Tyler was a freedom fighter! So was William Wallace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettuce Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 I thought Watt Tyler was one of the leaders of the Peasant Revolt, whose 'army' met the Kings army near London. Everything was going cordially between the King and Tyler, until one of the King's aids thought he'd move negotiations along a bit by sticking a rather nasty dagger into Tylers soft bits, thus ending the Revolt! History was never my strong subject though. :cool: LOL! Only on SWF could a thread entitled "Frys Message" turn into a history lesson about the peasant revolt! :smt102:smt023:smt044 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 So was William Wallace You've been watching too many Hollywood dramatisations. William Wallace was a terrorist, but like in so many Hollywood films they love to make the English out to be the villains from giving Orks English accents in the Lord of the Rings to giving Darth Vadars men English accents. I for one felt not a ounce of compassion when Mel Gibson was hung drawn and quartered. It made me very proud to be English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 So we still dont know how long this bid process is going to take do we?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damers Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Another 48 hours! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Smithfield was a meat market 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