Standard Article

[Tangled up in Blue]

I doubt it would lead to MD's bankruptcy.
The Sainsburys debt is secured against an MD asset which is worth considerably more (according to RM) than the loan, I would imagine that given the worst case scenario of the whole RH /FF thing going tits up he will either realise this asset and pay off Sainsbsurys , keeping the balance in MD, Realise another of MD's assets to pay off Sainsburys keeping the more valuable asset.
I would imagine we may go into Administration, depending on the size of any other debts at the time (and who they are owed to) or at least be disposed of bu i can't see Liquidation

So Administration (rather than Liquidation)is probably what lies in store for us, if as you say, the FF/RH project fails to materialise.I can't wait.:scared:

 

[Firestorm]

So Administration (rather than Liquidation)is probably what lies in store for us, if as you say, the FF/RH project fails to materialise.I can't wait.:scared:

I think I said we may go into administration if FF fails to materialise

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I think I said we may go into administration if FF fails to materialise

Yes you did.
As an English teacher I always advise my students to cover themselves with modals wherever possible, but what remains merely a possibility for you is more like a probability for me.

 

[A Century United]

Yes you did.But what remains merely a possibility for you is more like a probability for me.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Gallows humour? :)

 

[Beefy]

So Administration (rather than Liquidation)is probably what lies in store for us, if as you say, the FF/RH project fails to materialise.I can't wait.:scared:

If the new ground doesn't materialise then it's curtains for SUFC, in my opinion. Maybe not on day one but there's no future in the long term for us without a new ground.

 

[Mick]

If the new ground doesn't materialise then it's curtains for SUFC, in my opinion. Maybe not on day one but there's no future in the long term for us without a new ground.

Certainly not if we haven't got the old one anymore !

 

[Beefy]

Well we don't have the old one anymore. Staying at Roots Hall isn't an option because it's not ours and one way or another we are going to have to leave.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

What has that got to do with the points about SUFC which I raised and which you chose not to answer? :unsure:

Because that is the type of dynamic that drives capitalism.

Personally I think something being in both parties' mutual interest is a pretty decent starting point for a business relationship.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Because that is the type of dynamic that drives capitalism.

Personally I think something being in both parties' mutual interest is a pretty decent starting point for a business relationship.

But for the arrangement to be of mutual interest, SUFC have to get something out of it too, don't they(other than possibly going into Administration)if the whole RH/FF deck of cards collapses?
As has been pointed out elsewhere, before the current Chairman took over, SUFC owned RH and Boots and Laces, despite being in debt.Now we own neither of these assets but have somehow managed to rack up even more massive levels of debt along the way.
Sorry, but I don't see this as a win-win situation(not for SUFC anyway).

 

[Beefy]

SUFC get a future out of it. We wouldn't have one otherwise.

 

[Firestorm]

But for the arrangement to be of mutual interest, SUFC have to get something out of it too, don't they(other than possibly going into Administration)if the whole RH/FF deck of cards collapses?
As has been pointed out elsewhere, before the current Chairman took over, SUFC owned RH and Boots and Laces, despite being in debt.Now we own neither of these assets but have somehow managed to rack up even more massive levels of debt along the way.
Sorry, but I don't see this as a win-win situation(not for SUFC anyway).

And , as also has been pointed out elsewhere, we were losing money under the previous Chairman to such an extent that disposal of assets was the only way to maintain cash flow.

In 1995 we disposed of 3M's worth of assets (transfer fees Colly etc) and made a profit of 700k , 1995 transfer income of 1.4M led to a loss of 250K thats losing 2M a year without asset disposal . Had this been maintained at the time the Value of the fixed assets (8M in 1997) would have been eroded by 2001 and our current debt of 7.5M would have been reached 7 years ago
Yet despite 7 seasons in the basement division we are still keeping our heads above water (just),had two promotions it must indicate that something is being done reasonably well considering we have had nothing like the transfer windfalls we got in the mid 90's

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

SUFC get a future out of it. We wouldn't have one otherwise.

A future where we won't own FF(if it ever gets built)and where our share of any much vaunted increased revenue streams is uncertain (not to say non-existent)?

 

[Beefy]

A future where we won't own FF(if it ever gets built)and where our share of any much vaunted increased revenue streams is uncertain (not to say non-existent)?

We don't own Roots Hall and will have to move just as soon as we start getting charged rent.

This isn't about whether we as a Club will get revenue streams and be able to thrive elsewhere. It's not even about the logistics of staying at a 55 year old ground where we can only get 11,000 people in. It's about us not owning Roots Hall and therefore not having any real control over our destiny.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

We don't own Roots Hall and will have to move just as soon as we start getting charged rent.

This isn't about whether we as a Club will get revenue streams and be able to thrive elsewhere. It's not even about the logistics of staying at a 55 year old ground where we can only get 11,000 people in. It's about us not owning Roots Hall and therefore not having any real control over our destiny.

And if the FF project doesn't come off and the Chairman has to return Sainsbury's loan then presumably he'll be looking to unload RH to new owners.

 

[Beefy]

New owners of the ground. I doubt that there's anyone out there with the resources/desire to take on the football club without the ground, let alone having enough money to buy the ground back as well. If Martin Dawn sell up then the best offer will undoubtedly come in form someone who wants to develop on the ground and all it will take will be the insistence that we actually pay the rent that we're supposed to be paying and then we'll probably have to vacate pretty quickly.

We lost the ability to determine our destiny as soon as we ran up so much debt that they only way out was to sell our only asset.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

New owners of the ground. I doubt that there's anyone out there with the resources/desire to take on the football club without the ground, let alone having enough money to buy the ground back as well. If Martin Dawn sell up then the best offer will undoubtedly come in form someone who wants to develop on the ground and all it will take will be the insistence that we actually pay the rent that we're supposed to be paying and then we'll probably have to vacate pretty quickly.

We lost the ability to determine our destiny as soon as we ran up so much debt that they only way out was to sell our only asset.

But what about the covenant on the ground, under the terms of which(IIRC),we have to be rehoused(so to speak)before RH can be developed? :unsure:

 

[Beefy]

I don't think anyone should rely too much on the Covenant. It's kind of reassuring that it's there but I wouldn't expect it to stand up to any real legal challenge. We haven't been able to pay a penny in rent in a decade and if we suddenly had to start to pay rent I don't see how we'd be able to afford it. I don't think it would be that difficult for anyone to challenge our legal right to be squatting on someone else's land (which Roots Hall sadly is).

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I don't think anyone should rely too much on the Covenant. It's kind of reassuring that it's there but I wouldn't expect it to stand up to any real legal challenge. We haven't been able to pay a penny in rent in a decade and if we suddenly had to start to pay rent I don't see how we'd be able to afford it. I don't think it would be that difficult for anyone to challenge our legal right to be squatting on someone else's land (which Roots Hall sadly is).

Frankly, I'm not so sanguine as you appear to be about the Covenant being so easy to tear up.If it were as easy as you seem to suggest, I'm sure Vic would have had a go in his time and I'm sure the present Chairman, with his predisposition for High Court appearances, would have chanced his arm too.One for the future perhaps? :unsure:

 

[Beefy]

Why would Vic or Ron have challenged the Covenant? It would be a matter of last resort to make money on Roots Hall. Certainly for Ron Martin the big money has always been linked to the development of Fossetts Farm.

I think people overstate the security that the Covenant gives us, hence the growing wish for Ron to sell the Club. If he did then we really could be screwed.