Articles in Todays Echo - Dated 2/07/2010

[Thorpe Groyney]

It's of concern to me that the only real substance to the article was the interview with the Southend councillor. The rest of it left far more questions than answers.

 

[SUFCStu]

Thanks for putting this up.

Administration would be pretty good right now.....

 

[class]

Anyone But Ron (ABR)

Geoff King?

 

[Blue_Wes]

The thing is we may not even get the chance to go into administration now would we??? Ron could put us into administration at any time and SAVE THE CLUB but if he does this then my understanding is that the administrators would then sell the club as quickly as possible to the highest bidder (almost certainly the consortium as Ron doesn't have a pot to p*** in). At this moment in time I think administration would be an absolute GODSEND to all of us, seriously things seem so bad that I'm desperate for us to fall into administration any time soon but I just can't see Ron doing it. I think we all know what is likely to happen, we'll be in the High Court again and the bill won't have been paid - what do you really think the judge is gonna do this time after all that's gone on in the past few months and the warnings given to Ron about the consequences of this happening again. Bottom line is we won't be given the chance to go into administration - we'll be wound up.

Of course I don't profess to be an expert so if someone (anyone!!) knows any different then please post a reply and tell us - I'm desperate for any glimmer of hope to cling onto at the moment......

I think the difference is down to the Judge's discretion, and whther we have any assets. So, if we have assets, i.e. a ground or players. These are considered assets and an administrator would take over the running of the company, selling these off to pay off the debts. However, if a club has no assets, i.e no ground and 9 contracted players, then then the club is considered insolvent as it has no money, and no assets to raise funds, and this is where the winding up order comes in.

As we know, Ron has sold of the ground, and year on year reduced the playing staff so in hand with our zero bank balance we no have no assets to raise funds, therefore I'm not sure we'd get the option of administration.

That's my uneducated take on it anyhow.

 

[Firestorm]

Any prospective bids for the club in administration would be subject to the agreement of the majority of the Creditors (hence Bates who was owed 51% of Leeds debts being able to block every bid except his own despite it being the worst offer on the table)
I believe that we could well be in a similar situation with the majority of the debt being to RM managed/owned companies.

The Sainsburys loans were secured with SUFC shares, not made to SUFC, RHL / SEL / MD actually owe the money to Sainsburys

 

[Holy Joe]

2 thoughts

"Keeping Steve Tilson on as manager would also be a priority and assembling a squad of 18 to 20 players under well paid contracts, Mr Rubin added. "

first - they don't need to be well paid (that's what arguably created this mess) - just paid

But most worrying....

"IF Fossetts Farm doesn’t go ahead it would be disastrous. I would be concerned what security the football club has so far as Roots Hall is concerned. It’s always been my major concern that if they don’t get the new stadium they would be unable to continue to occupy their current site.”

What does this councillor know? I'd always thought Roots Hall cannot be taken away until Fossetts is complete (planning restrictions and site covenents).

 

[Holy Joe]

The Sainsburys loans were secured with SUFC shares, not made to SUFC, RHL / SEL / MD actually owe the money to Sainsburys

I found that interesting - presumably then Sainsburys attach some value to the football club - I'd always thought it was pretty worthless.

 

[Angell Delight]

I think the difference is down to the Judge's discretion, and whther we have any assets. So, if we have assets, i.e. a ground or players. These are considered assets and an administrator would take over the running of the company, selling these off to pay off the debts. However, if a club has no assets, i.e no ground and 9 contracted players, then then the club is considered insolvent as it has no money, and no assets to raise funds, and this is where the winding up order comes in.

As we know, Ron has sold of the ground, and year on year reduced the playing staff so in hand with our zero bank balance we no have no assets to raise funds, therefore I'm not sure we'd get the option of administration.
That's my uneducated take on it anyhow.

Ok thanks for the insight - that's not what I wanted to hear though.

 

[Maldon Blues]

The same Mr Rubin who once sold the Club to Anton Johnson?

 

[Firestorm]

I found that interesting - presumably then Sainsburys attach some value to the football club - I'd always thought it was pretty worthless.

Me too, I only put this because of the various statements which have been going around. One many months ago when there was this "RM said he paid the tax bill but Sainsburys leant him the money" debate and the recent one where Sainsburys are deemed to have a controlling interest (hence the letters to sainsburys) if they were just the major Creditor it would be a different situation.

 

[Firestorm]

The same Mr Rubin who once sold the Club to Anton Johnson?

That would be the one, but Shrimperian points out that that was really down to the Fans and the local press being nasty...

 

[Jam_Man]

That would be the one, but Shrimperian points out that that was really down to the Fans and the local press being nasty...

And why were they being nasty ?

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

An interesting aspect of today piece in the Echo was the re-branding of the 'Consortium' to the 'Blue Knights'. Perhaps they were looking for a media friendly name with the purpose of supporters having a group to chant for. After all "We want the Blue Knights" sounds a bit more appropriate than '"e want the Consortium".

On the evidence of the information given in the Echo, however, which was the perfect platform to let supporters know exactly how they would going about saving the club, maybe a more fitting moniker at the moment would be the 'Blue Nones'.

 

[Supershrimper]

Just a thought, but if Southend did go into administration, who would be the biggest creditor??? By my calculations that would be Ron (assuming it was his/his companies money he has been putting into Southend). If he is the biggest creditor surely he can refuse any offer that is given to him in administration terms, except his own offer?

Sainsburys aren't our biggest creditor, they own the land on Southend, and technically they owe us money (be it in installments) throughout the coming years don't they? Ron owns the land Fossets is going to be built on, and Sainsburys owns the land that Roots Hall is on. We have to move from Roots Hall to allow Sainsburys to build their new supermarket, therefore the only option left would be to move to Fossets Farm. Now if this is owned by one of Rons companies, not involved with Southend United (more than likely) HMRC, Creditors and the like can't touch this. So if we was to force Ron out, and we moved to Fossets Farm he would own the land and we would have to pay us rent, putting us over a barrel effectivly?

If Ron was forced out, i would hazard a guess that he would be the bigges creditor and would stand firmly first in line to get any money coming out of Southend United.

Up the Blues.

 

[Jam_Man]

I think the difference is down to the Judge's discretion, and whther we have any assets. So, if we have assets, i.e. a ground or players. These are considered assets and an administrator would take over the running of the company, selling these off to pay off the debts. However, if a club has no assets, i.e no ground and 9 contracted players, then then the club is considered insolvent as it has no money, and no assets to raise funds, and this is where the winding up order comes in.

As we know, Ron has sold of the ground, and year on year reduced the playing staff so in hand with our zero bank balance we no have no assets to raise funds, therefore I'm not sure we'd get the option of administration.

That's my uneducated take on it anyhow.

The problem is that following relegation we DIDNT reduce the playing staff and maintained a wage bill far to big for what we needed.

He didnt intentionally reduce the staff, but the financial problems caused by trying to maintain CCC level contracts meant we couldnt recruit more when the embargos were put in place last season.

 

[Firestorm]

Just a thought, but if Southend did go into administration, who would be the biggest creditor??? By my calculations that would be Ron (assuming it was his/his companies money he has been putting into Southend). If he is the biggest creditor surely he can refuse any offer that is given to him in administration terms, except his own offer?

Sainsburys aren't our biggest creditor, they own the land on Southend, and technically they owe us money (be it in installments) throughout the coming years don't they? Ron owns the land Fossets is going to be built on, and Sainsburys owns the land that Roots Hall is on. We have to move from Roots Hall to allow Sainsburys to build their new supermarket, therefore the only option left would be to move to Fossets Farm. Now if this is owned by one of Rons companies, not involved with Southend United (more than likely) HMRC, Creditors and the like can't touch this. So if we was to force Ron out, and we moved to Fossets Farm he would own the land and we would have to pay us rent, putting us over a barrel effectivly?

If Ron was forced out, i would hazard a guess that he would be the bigges creditor and would stand firmly first in line to get any money coming out of Southend United.

Up the Blues.

Also, as I said on a different thread, RM would have the power of veto regarding any buyout were we to go in administration

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

An interesting aspect of today piece in the Echo was the re-branding of the 'Consortium' to the 'Blue Knights'. Perhaps they were looking for a media friendly name with the purpose of supporters having a group to chant for. After all "We want the Blue Knights" sounds a bit more appropriate than '"e want the Consortium".

On the evidence of the information given in the Echo, however, which was the perfect platform to let supporters know exactly how they would going about saving the club, maybe a more fitting moniker at the moment would be the 'Blue Nones'.

As things stand I'd be happy with being taken over by The Barron Knights if it got us out of this mess...

 

[TCR]

Blue knight need to pay RM a bundle

Finally someone has understood the position of the club (Supershrimper at 1224). Yes - Martin would be the largest creditor and as such has to agree to any offer of payment. For him to bid for the club would make us like Leeds with their second Bates led administration and more than likely lead to a 20 point penalty which would almost certainly guarantee conference football in 2011/12. If the consortium or blue knights or other group want to make an offer then they will be paying RM and not the club. Would they be prepared to do that? Even at 20p in the pound RM will get over £1 million. If RM does not pay monies owed (video 2 indicates he will) then, as has been said on this forum, the liklihood is winding up and not administration. I am not sure what the position is regarding the new development if there is no football club, but I am sure that there plenty of people able to tell me. If the development could not go ahead then it is in RM's interest to ensure that Southend continue to exist.
My feeling is that RM will try to continue. If he cannot fund us we either go to the wall or our rescuers will have to give him a lot of money. The club has no assets only potential gate money and sundry income from shop etc. The only quick fix would be for Hooper and Bailey to get transferred for a lot of money giving us enough to keep HMRC happy for a few months.

 

[TrueBlue]

Tory Nigel Holdcroft warned if Fossetts Farm doesn’t go ahead soon the club could find itself homeless.

Right so covenent is worthless?

 

[ElstreeBlue]

That would be the one, but Shrimperian points out that that was really down to the Fans and the local press being nasty...

No one suffered for "selling" to Anton Johnson more than the Rubins - they suffered like the rest of us as fans, but they were also denied the money that they should have got for their family's shares. No one else at the time said "Don't sell to Ant*n Johns*n". Everyone else was taken in as well.

If the worst thing Mark Rubin ever did was "sell" to the person he "sold" to, that's not a reason to be angry with him - if anything, it would be a reason to feel sorry for him.

He may have made mistakes with "that" Echo interview that he did, but we should also remember that he was much younger and the club was suddenly his after the untimely death of his father; he also had to endure the most nasty anti-semitic vitriol, which I'd hope that any real fans are now ashamed had taken place. He may have made mistakes, but they were nothing compared to what followed with subsequent chairmen/owners. Along with the other members of the consortium, he has run a reputable business, and I'm sure he's now wiser than he was when he was running a football club at about the age of 30. I know he is a big SUFC fan and has the club's best interests at heart.

Fine he made a couple of mistakes nearly 30 years ago, but if we have a wealthy SUFC fan with other wealthy business associates willing to try to get our club out of the awful mess it's in, what more do we want? I'm just hoping for our football club to remain in existence and I'd be grateful to anyone who will try to help us achieve that!