Is Administration a desirable outcome? (1 Viewer)

[Godiva]

I listened to the Periscope stream (Thanks CJ!) yesterday and it seems like those there like the idea of starving the club into administration where the Trust will be ready to pick up the club for a pittance. The side effect of course is that it will hurt SISU.

Those who believe that we can hurt SISU by hurting the club do not after all these years understand the ownership structure. SISU do NOT own the club. They are NOT being paid management fees by the club. They are not being paid interests on the loans. They are NOT lining their pockets when the club sell players. Depriving the club of money will have no effect on SISU’s pockets as they get nothing already.

Anyway, the logic is that if we stop buying season tickets the club will run short of cash in the off season. No cash equals administration, surely?
Not really! What it will achieve is a situation where SISU need to decide if they want out or not. If they want to stay they can then act as a bank and provide a short term loan to be repaid during the season. They did that two years ago, they can do it again. The point is that SISU have options even if the club runs out of cash.

There may be one scenario where SISU would accept administration to be in their best interest. That is if they should want to write off the original investments from Funds A-E. Problem is that it’s here they make their money as they charge these funds a small percentage of the nominal value invested. So why would they slaughter their golden goose?
But let’s play on – SISU decide to get rid of the original investors Funds A-E and so they (SISU/ARVO, not the club or the Trust or the fans!) put the club in administration – what happens next? Well, SISU/ARVO will bring back Mr Appelton who did a great job (SISU perspective) last time. ARVO sit on all assets so only a very high bid from the Trust (or others) will relieve us from SISU. And such a high bid would probably buy the club even without an administration.
So the outcome of administration would most likely be SISU/ARVO now the actual owners with a club free of debts, running at break even and with the possibility of selling off Ryton and make a couple of millions on that. Those millions then goes into their own pockets – they wouldn’t have to share with the original investors. AND they could even sell the debt-free and self-sustainable club for another couple of millions.

Maybe we should re-think the idea of pushing the club into administration, because if SISU have the power to prevent it, and if they allow administration they will benefit from it – AND retain ownership!

 

---

[hill83]

 

[Skybluefaz]

Good post. I think we need a rethink really as a fanbase as does the trust.

 

[Captain Dart]

I listened to the Periscope stream (Thanks CJ!) yesterday and it seems like those there like the idea of starving the club into administration where the Trust will be ready to pick up the club for a pittance. The side effect of course is that it will hurt SISU.

Those who believe that we can hurt SISU by hurting the club do not after all these years understand the ownership structure. SISU do NOT own the club. They are NOT being paid management fees by the club. They are not being paid interests on the loans. They are NOT lining their pockets when the club sell players. Depriving the club of money will have no effect on SISU’s pockets as they get nothing already.

Anyway, the logic is that if we stop buying season tickets the club will run short of cash in the off season. No cash equals administration, surely?
Not really! What it will achieve is a situation where SISU need to decide if they want out or not. If they want to stay they can then act as a bank and provide a short term loan to be repaid during the season. They did that two years ago, they can do it again. The point is that SISU have options even if the club runs out of cash.

There may be one scenario where SISU would accept administration to be in their best interest. That is if they should want to write off the original investments from Funds A-E. Problem is that it’s here they make their money as they charge these funds a small percentage of the nominal value invested. So why would they slaughter their golden goose?
But let’s play on – SISU decide to get rid of the original investors Funds A-E and so they (SISU/ARVO, not the club or the Trust or the fans!) put the club in administration – what happens next? Well, SISU/ARVO will bring back Mr Appelton who did a great job (SISU perspective) last time. ARVO sit on all assets so only a very high bid from the Trust (or others) will relieve us from SISU. And such a high bid would probably buy the club even without an administration.
So the outcome of administration would most likely be SISU/ARVO now the actual owners with a club free of debts, running at break even and with the possibility of selling off Ryton and make a couple of millions on that. Those millions then goes into their own pockets – they wouldn’t have to share with the original investors. AND they could even sell the debt-free and self-sustainable club for another couple of millions.

Maybe we should re-think the idea of pushing the club into administration, because if SISU have the power to prevent it, and if they allow administration they will benefit from it – AND retain ownership!

You are over thinking this, those people who don't renew are just fed up, the subtleties of how it effects SISU are irrelevant, they ain't going to pay for a poor product.

 

[Nick]

You are over thinking this, those people who don't renew are just fed up, the subtleties of how it effects SISU are irrelevant, they ain't going to pay for a poor product.

If that's the case why do people go to away games but not home games where the same players play? Also at the meeting there was a "that's what I do" from the stage when suggesting just doing away games only with the others nodding their heads in agreement on the stage?

Same product whether we are playing home or away.

 

[clint van damme]

I'm not sure too many people were banging the drum for administration. The Pompey fella made a couple of points regarding administration that should have sounded a note of caution for anyone listening.
Firstly, the first Pompey administrator wouldn't even talk to their trust unless they could prove funds of 100m.
Secondly, they were helped massively by an unusually long administration period, not a luxury you could normally rely on in the circumstances.

 

[chiefdave]

Can't disagree with any of that. The other thought I had about administration is what the Trust would actually end up with.

Chances are we're in L2 next season and any boycott or similar won't come into effect until then as obviously this years season tickets have already been sold. So lets say next season there is a boycott and the club goes into administration. Even if the Trust are the successful bidder there will be one, possibly two (would SISU accept a CVA if they had been 'forced' into administration) which would mean more than likely when the trust took over we'd be non-league.

We also would no longer have a deal at the Ricoh. Fisher has told us the lower attended games actually lose money.

So on day one what would the plan be. Do the trust come in and immediately move us to the Butts? Will these thousands of people and sponsors turn up for non-league? It seems an incredibly risky strategy to me and at the end of it we will have to run the business in a not too dissimilar manner to the current regime. Albeit with a much better relationship with fans and possibly Wasps & CCC.

 

[cloughie]

As I have said on another thread it was clearly stated several times by different people that a boycott was not needed as it was happening naturally by people voting with there feet and making their own personal decision not to renew next season, I doubt anyone would accept being told not to go to games. If people want to go they will go, if not they won't , regardless of what the trust or anyone else say

 

[chiefdave]

Firstly, the first Pompey administrator wouldn't even talk to their trust unless they could prove funds of 100m.
Secondly, they were helped massively by an unusually long administration period, not a luxury you could normally rely on in the circumstances.

And then a huge helping hand when the FL said they would not issue the golden share to anyone but the supporters trust which effectively sunk the other bidder.

 

[mrtrench]

I've added you to my list of people who know what they're talking about

 

[NortonSkyBlue]

For sisu administration is not an option nor is it likely that a solvent business without outside creditors be able to go in to administration. If it is thought that distressing sisu at this point is anything other than distressing CCFC then you are mistaken. Not renewing because of poor product or NOPM is only going to one party and that is us.

 

[Godiva]

As I have said on another thread it was clearly stated several times by different people that a boycott was not needed as it was happening naturally by people voting with there feet and making their own personal decision not to renew next season, I doubt anyone would accept being told not to go to games.

I feel that nobody except the SD guy was against a boycott. Asked how many would renew their ST the result was none. They even asked again and still nobody would. Or rather nobody dared to say they would. Because by all statistical measurements some present at the meeting will renew.

If people want to go they will go, if not they won't , regardless of what the trust or anyone else say

What you say is that a leader makes no difference?

 

[MatthewWallis]

Administration worked so well for us last time, if it wasn't for admin we'd still have SISU in charge, oh wait..

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Anything that gets rid of them is good.

I will not renew next year partly because of the owners but mainly the product is so poor if I went to the cinema and the film was shit I wouldn't go back to watch it time after time I have taken the emotion out of it just like our owners.

 

[Nick]

Anything that gets rid of them is good.

Like it was good when the trust were on late kick off calling for administration because it would get rid?

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

If that's the case why do people go to away games but not home games where the same players play? Also at the meeting there was a "that's what I do" from the stage when suggesting just doing away games only with the others nodding their heads in agreement on the stage?

Same product whether we are playing home or away.

I think we are well aware that some of those attending away games see this as part of the NOPM protest, others attend because that's what they do, follow City where ever they go. However, our average away attendance so far this season is under 900, none over 2000 ( the highest is 1956 at Swindon, the lowest, 257, at Wycombe). The question is; how many of these will continue to go in Division 4? I also think that CD's post above has some relevance, many people will not renew because they are fed up with the football rather than anything else. In both cases, unless there is a miracle, home and away I believe that support will fall away significantlyand the club's income will reduce quite drastically possibly leading as some think to administration. However Godiva's well expressed and considered post shows the reality of why this will not be the panacea that many expect/want. Regrettably I think his conclusions are quite accurate, administration will only see Sisu strengthening their stranglehold on the club.

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm not sure too many people were banging the drum for administration. The Pompey fella made a couple of points regarding administration that should have sounded a note of caution for anyone listening.
Firstly, the first Pompey administrator wouldn't even talk to their trust unless they could prove funds of 100m.
Secondly, they were helped massively by an unusually long administration period, not a luxury you could normally rely on in the circumstances.

The FL also stepped in and said that they would only issue the golden share to the fans takeover second time in admin.

Did you catch the bit where he was asked about asset stripping and he mentioned that some assets were lost in the previous administration. I think he made the point of saying assets were handled not illegally but incorrectly during the previous administrator. Anyone now who the previous administrator was?

The gist was that a land asset over the road was sold by the owner at the time to a different company of the owners but no money was ever exchanged if I heard correctly.

 

[clint van damme]

And then a huge helping hand when the FL said they would not issue the golden share to anyone but the supporters trust which effectively sunk the other bidder.

Yep. They helped Pompey out in a big way, which everyone seemed to acknowledge was quite uncharacteristic.

 

[clint van damme]

The FL also stepped in and said that they would only issue the golden share to the fans takeover second time in admin.

Did you catch the bit where he was asked about asset stripping and he mentioned that some assets were lost in the previous administration. I think he made the point of saying assets were handled not illegally but incorrectly during the previous administrator. Anyone now who the previous administrator was?

The gist was that a land asset over the road was sold by the owner at the time to a different company of the owners but no money was ever exchanged if I heard correctly.

I'm sure he mentioned the name but I can't remember who he said. Fairly sure it was a company not an individual though the second administrator was Trevor Birch I think.

 

[cloughie]

I feel that nobody except the SD guy was against a boycott. Asked how many would renew their ST the result was none. They even asked again and still nobody would. Or rather nobody dared to say they would. Because by all statistical measurements some present at the meeting will renew.


What you say is that a leader makes no difference?

The problem is there is no clear leadership as the fan base is so divided. Until fans can unite under one banner whether that be the the Trust or whoever. As The trust is the largest fan based group the rest need to get on board. No good moaning as you won't influence the direction the trust goes in from the outside.
Unless fans have a total boycott of the trust...oh h'mm wait a

 

[Nick]

The problem is there is no clear leadership as the fan base is so divided. Until fans can unite under one banner whether that be the the Trust or whoever. As The trust is the largest fan based group the rest need to get on board. No good moaning as you won't influence the direction the trust goes in from the outside.
Unless fans have a total boycott of the trust...oh h'mm wait a

Just keep saying everybody should just agree with the trust won't work will it?

 

[Great_Expectations]

Great opening post.

In extension, if the scenario where to play out whereby the Trust own the club, is that something we would all proactively choose? What have the Trust actually done to earn the right to represent us all as fans? The fact there are numerous other groups indicates they don't have full support of all. What is their mission statement? Why would we all trust the Trust to run the club? I personally don't feel represented by, or any loyalty to, them.

None of the above is meant to be derogatory or disrespectful, but genuine questions that this discussion provoked.

I anticipate, and to a degree appreciate, the 'anyone is better than SISU' argument, but would we collectively choose the Trust as that anyone?

 

[fernandopartridge]

I listened to the Periscope stream (Thanks CJ!) yesterday and it seems like those there like the idea of starving the club into administration where the Trust will be ready to pick up the club for a pittance. The side effect of course is that it will hurt SISU.

Those who believe that we can hurt SISU by hurting the club do not after all these years understand the ownership structure. SISU do NOT own the club. They are NOT being paid management fees by the club. They are not being paid interests on the loans. They are NOT lining their pockets when the club sell players. Depriving the club of money will have no effect on SISU’s pockets as they get nothing already.

Anyway, the logic is that if we stop buying season tickets the club will run short of cash in the off season. No cash equals administration, surely?
Not really! What it will achieve is a situation where SISU need to decide if they want out or not. If they want to stay they can then act as a bank and provide a short term loan to be repaid during the season. They did that two years ago, they can do it again. The point is that SISU have options even if the club runs out of cash.

There may be one scenario where SISU would accept administration to be in their best interest. That is if they should want to write off the original investments from Funds A-E. Problem is that it’s here they make their money as they charge these funds a small percentage of the nominal value invested. So why would they slaughter their golden goose?
But let’s play on – SISU decide to get rid of the original investors Funds A-E and so they (SISU/ARVO, not the club or the Trust or the fans!) put the club in administration – what happens next? Well, SISU/ARVO will bring back Mr Appelton who did a great job (SISU perspective) last time. ARVO sit on all assets so only a very high bid from the Trust (or others) will relieve us from SISU. And such a high bid would probably buy the club even without an administration.
So the outcome of administration would most likely be SISU/ARVO now the actual owners with a club free of debts, running at break even and with the possibility of selling off Ryton and make a couple of millions on that. Those millions then goes into their own pockets – they wouldn’t have to share with the original investors. AND they could even sell the debt-free and self-sustainable club for another couple of millions.

Maybe we should re-think the idea of pushing the club into administration, because if SISU have the power to prevent it, and if they allow administration they will benefit from it – AND retain ownership!

Worth adding that the high bid would need to demonstrate proof of funds too.

 

[fernandopartridge]

You are over thinking this, those people who don't renew are just fed up, the subtleties of how it effects SISU are irrelevant, they ain't going to pay for a poor product.

No, some are not going cos the football is rubbish. Many state they're boycotting to 'starve them out'.

 

[sky blue john]

Just keep saying everybody should just agree with the trust won't work will it?

Thats why we have voting in this country.
How many members do the trust have ?
Surely a vote accross its members is the way to go. Its simple really if you want a say/vote join if you haven't already.

 

[cloughie]

Just keep saying everybody should just agree with the trust won't work will it?

I didn't say agree with the trust read it again. I said as they are the largest group everyone should unite under a single group be that the trust or whoever. You influence the direction the leadership/ trust and how it is run from within not from the outside.

 

[chiefdave]

Did you catch the bit where he was asked about asset stripping and he mentioned that some assets were lost in the previous administration. I think he made the point of saying assets were handled not illegally but incorrectly during the previous administrator. Anyone now who the previous administrator was?

The gist was that a land asset over the road was sold by the owner at the time to a different company of the owners but no money was ever exchanged if I heard correctly.

They've actually been in admin four or five times but I think the administrator he was referring to was Andrew Andronikou. It was a similar situation to ours. The clubs owners controlled the administration and put their preferred administrator in place.

To keep it simple Pompey owned various bits of land around Fratton Park and over time ownership got changed to different companies. Those companies remained with previous owners when the club was sold on.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

I
Those who believe that we can hurt SISU by hurting the club do not after all these years understand the ownership structure. SISU do NOT own the club. They are NOT being paid management fees by the club. They are not being paid interests on the loans. They are NOT lining their pockets when the club sell players. Depriving the club of money will have no effect on SISU’s pockets as they get nothing already.

I though SISU /ARVO did actually own the club? Am I am thousands of others wrong on this ?

 

[Esoterica]

Totally agree , this club is fucked.. I like many of my friends never missed a game home or away for over 25 years or so.. even living up north travelling to mid-week games on the south coast. Now I struggle to stay awake on match days to listening to S B Player ... Sisu have almost completed their mission by Destroying and ripping the heart and soul out of our once great and proud city... NOPM... STOP BUYING SEASON TICKETS !!!! Lets bleed these Horrible fuckers of the only thing they want , and thats ££££££££££££££££££

There are still plenty of people championing NOPM, here's at least one example from the supporter-led takeover thread just yesterday - one of the most liked posts of that whole thread. I'm afraid too many fans cannot get their heads around the complexity of hedge funds and finance (nor should they have to, as none of us signed up for anything other than being footy fans). Couple that with a feeling of helplessness about the situation then I can understand why it (wrongly) feels the only influence they can have is to starve the club of their hard earned cash. Without trying to sound patronising (I'm failing, I know, sorry!) these type of people need leading; strong leadership from a single banner fan group. We don't have that, there's no clear vision, a history of poor decision making has left people sceptical, and no 'fresh blood' appears willing to step up to bridge that gap either from inside or outside the trust - passion for CCFC and a long history of supporting the club is not enough. It's times like this I wish I lived closer to home.

 

[Skybluefaz]

I though SISU /ARVO did actually own the club? Am I am thousands of others wrong on this ?

Yes. OSB58 has cleared this up numerous times but it's easier to get angry at sisu.

 

[Suffolk sky blues]

I liked what the trust said last night but one thing said is speed we need to be up & running asap.god knows with sisu

 

[Nick]

There are still plenty of people championing NOPM, here's at least one example from the supporter-led takeover thread just yesterday - one of the most liked posts of that whole thread. I'm afraid too many fans cannot get their heads around the complexity of hedge funds and finance (nor should they have to, as none of us signed up for anything other than being footy fans). Couple that with a feeling of helplessness about the situation then I can understand why it (wrongly) feels the only influence they can have is to starve the club of their hard earned cash. Without trying to sound patronising (I'm failing, I know, sorry!) these type of people need leading; strong leadership from a single banner fan group. We don't have that, there's no clear vision, a history of poor decision making has left people sceptical, and no 'fresh blood' appears willing to step up to bridge that gap either from inside or outside the trust - passion for CCFC and a long history of supporting the club is not enough. It's times like this I wish I lived closer to home.

That's my issue.

The trust don't need to say "everybody boycott" they can just put out there about fan ownership coming from admin. Look at when the SISU accounts came out, people going mad thinking they were CCFCs. Nobody then corrected or explained and just let it run. (Apart from on here)

When I have pointed this out in the past, it was because "people want something to believe in" whether it's correct or not.

 

[Nick]

Thats why we have voting in this country.
How many members do the trust have ?
Surely a vote accross its members is the way to go. Its simple really if you want a say/vote join if you haven't already.

A vote for what?

 

[sky blue john]

A vote for what?

For whatever direction you want the trust to take on important decisions.

 

[Nick]

For whatever direction you want the trust to take on important decisions.

Have I missed them?