Southampton in administration ? ? ? ?

[Bobzilla 179]

Buckethead, I''m not sure what you do, but that is a very confused post, and there appear to be all sorts of inaccuracies in it.

Under any securitisation deal, a company ("C") sets up a subsidiary ("SPV") that it wholly owns. C then sells rights to some sort of income flow to SPV. SPV funds this purchase by issuing bonds (i.e. debt) to the market. The asset that the debt is secured on is the rights to the income flow, however there are usually all sorts of side agreements that covers what happends when SPV cannot make its debt payments.

What we have (I believe, and this is public domain) is a ''whole business'' securitisation. What this implies is that all profits from the business go first and foremost to servicing the debt. This will  be a very complex deal, because the profit flows from the business are not predictable. I would be very surprised if the deal was not secured on all business assets, including player registrations, land, buildings etc. I would also be quite surprised if the debt could not be forced back on NCFC, so if the SPV couldn''t service the debt, it became an obligation of NCFC plc.

And regarding your discussions on securitised mortgages, your legal knowledge is confused. If the bank couldn''t sue on the mortgages, then chances are the securitisation documentation is faulty. The Bank should be acting as undisclosed agent for the offshore securitisation vehicle, and so any claim that they bring would be in their position as undisclosed agent for the offshore subsidiary, which they would usually own. It is only if they sell the full legal title to the debt, and then sell the equity in the SPV (and not the debt) that there might be issues regarding title, but most securitsations do not involve a transfer of title, but of beneficial entitlement to the cash flows generated by the assets (i.e. to the cash payments received on the mortgages).

And your car analogy is very strange. If I sell you the use of my car for 25 years, but I stop maintaining it after 2 years, you can legitimately sue me for the value of the remaining 23 years. If you have since sold your wages that you will earn as a pizza delivery driver for the 25 years, off the back of the fact that you will have a car for that long, the person you have sold to can''t come looking to me, unless there is some form of arrangement between me and that person that actually the real arrangement is with me. Say, if you were an SPV or something, whose only purpose was to use my car as a pizza delivery vehicle... Sound even vaguely familliar?

[Bobzilla 179]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"]That''s one heavy post Buckethead and you lost me early on. However, we don''t own the debt (we weren''t the orignal lender, but the borrower) so how can we securitise it? That''s surely something that only the original lender can do and probably has, but we''re still making the installment payments, not some SPV set up by the Club?[/quote]

We didn''t securitise the debt but our business. See my post above as to what I believe we actually did.

[ricardo 7,445]

[quote user="Bobzilla"]

Buckethead, I''m not sure what you do, but that is a very confused post, and there appear to be all sorts of inaccuracies in it.

Under any securitisation deal, a company ("C") sets up a subsidiary ("SPV") that it wholly owns. C then sells rights to some sort of income flow to SPV. SPV funds this purchase by issuing bonds (i.e. debt) to the market. The asset that the debt is secured on is the rights to the income flow, however there are usually all sorts of side agreements that covers what happends when SPV cannot make its debt payments.

What we have (I believe, and this is public domain) is a ''whole business'' securitisation. What this implies is that all profits from the business go first and foremost to servicing the debt. This will  be a very complex deal, because the profit flows from the business are not predictable. I would be very surprised if the deal was not secured on all business assets, including player registrations, land, buildings etc. I would also be quite surprised if the debt could not be forced back on NCFC, so if the SPV couldn''t service the debt, it became an obligation of NCFC plc.

And regarding your discussions on securitised mortgages, your legal knowledge is confused. If the bank couldn''t sue on the mortgages, then chances are the securitisation documentation is faulty. The Bank should be acting as undisclosed agent for the offshore securitisation vehicle, and so any claim that they bring would be in their position as undisclosed agent for the offshore subsidiary, which they would usually own. It is only if they sell the full legal title to the debt, and then sell the equity in the SPV (and not the debt) that there might be issues regarding title, but most securitsations do not involve a transfer of title, but of beneficial entitlement to the cash flows generated by the assets (i.e. to the cash payments received on the mortgages).

And your car analogy is very strange. If I sell you the use of my car for 25 years, but I stop maintaining it after 2 years, you can legitimately sue me for the value of the remaining 23 years. If you have since sold your wages that you will earn as a pizza delivery driver for the 25 years, off the back of the fact that you will have a car for that long, the person you have sold to can''t come looking to me, unless there is some form of arrangement between me and that person that actually the real arrangement is with me. Say, if you were an SPV or something, whose only purpose was to use my car as a pizza delivery vehicle... Sound even vaguely familliar?

[/quote]

Now we can all see why the economy is up the creek without a paddle.

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Bobzilla"]

Buckethead, I''m not sure what you do, but that is a very confused post, and there appear to be all sorts of inaccuracies in it.

Under any securitisation deal, a company ("C") sets up a subsidiary ("SPV") that it wholly owns. C then sells rights to some sort of income flow to SPV. SPV funds this purchase by issuing bonds (i.e. debt) to the market. The asset that the debt is secured on is the rights to the income flow, however there are usually all sorts of side agreements that covers what happends when SPV cannot make its debt payments.

What we have (I believe, and this is public domain) is a ''whole business'' securitisation. What this implies is that all profits from the business go first and foremost to servicing the debt. This will  be a very complex deal, because the profit flows from the business are not predictable. I would be very surprised if the deal was not secured on all business assets, including player registrations, land, buildings etc. I would also be quite surprised if the debt could not be forced back on NCFC, so if the SPV couldn''t service the debt, it became an obligation of NCFC plc.

And regarding your discussions on securitised mortgages, your legal knowledge is confused. If the bank couldn''t sue on the mortgages, then chances are the securitisation documentation is faulty. The Bank should be acting as undisclosed agent for the offshore securitisation vehicle, and so any claim that they bring would be in their position as undisclosed agent for the offshore subsidiary, which they would usually own. It is only if they sell the full legal title to the debt, and then sell the equity in the SPV (and not the debt) that there might be issues regarding title, but most securitsations do not involve a transfer of title, but of beneficial entitlement to the cash flows generated by the assets (i.e. to the cash payments received on the mortgages).

And your car analogy is very strange. If I sell you the use of my car for 25 years, but I stop maintaining it after 2 years, you can legitimately sue me for the value of the remaining 23 years. If you have since sold your wages that you will earn as a pizza delivery driver for the 25 years, off the back of the fact that you will have a car for that long, the person you have sold to can''t come looking to me, unless there is some form of arrangement between me and that person that actually the real arrangement is with me. Say, if you were an SPV or something, whose only purpose was to use my car as a pizza delivery vehicle... Sound even vaguely familliar?

[/quote]

I think he cuts and pastes. A lot of us do that on occasion but it helps to make sure you understand the material you are using.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

I think he cuts and pastes. A lot of us do that on occasion but it helps to make sure you understand the material you are using.

[/quote]Wow surprise Yankee pops his head up.I suggest he of all people would be in an expert position to pass critique on the situation. Seeing as how the three most exposed companies in the World are Bank of America (MBNA), American Express and General Electric Capital. Time will tell us just how faulty those securitisation deeds are but in the meantime one can only wonder why companies such as amex are foreclosing accounts of previous good standing as if there''s no tommorrow and have even resorted to offering a $300 golden goodbye handshake to selected account holders who are given a rsvp pin which automatically cancels their account when entered on the amex website. There''s a large amount of money sitting off the coast of the UK sold and title duly assigned under LOP 1925 to various SPV''s. Maybe it''s something to do with the way the credit accounts have been securitised sorry securitized? Are you actually aware Yankee of the vast amount of restructuring going on behind scenes at amex and GE Capital right now these two companies are desperate to liquidate millions of accounts worldwide not because of a cash shortage which there is admittedly but before the world wakes up to the situation. I inderstand what Bobzilla says regarding the equitable assignment model but what the banks have often opted for is absolute assignment of the debt to the SPV. The advantages are (1) Bankruptcy remoteness in so far as the SPV cannot be held liable to creditors of the originator and (2) The SPV is able to receive a credit rating for the bond issues independently of the originators standing (very important at a time when general banking stock is being downgraded frequently). Without the benefits appointed by virtue of (1) and (2) above the investor might as well just purchase bonds issued directly by the originator lower yield but more established and likely safer in the long term. You''ll find that HMRC are also of the same opinion that many of these assignments under securitisation deals are absolute and represent true sale/asset backed securitisations (well why wouldn''t they be, that''s how the accounts are presented?). Not all by any means but many of these deals do involve several well known High street names who use complex multi tiered servicing and investment models (take a look at gracechurch card funding to see exactly what happens with something as simple as your barclaycard) often involving more than one assignment of the original debt portfolio for maximum depth of securitisation.The biggest problem the banking system has or more accurately will have is that they have as you aver secretly been acting as undisclosed agents for the owner of the debt. Are you aware how simple it is to knock a case out of Court in such circumstances where an undisclosed fee/commision arrangement is in place or the legal implications of ''Barclays Bank'' being on your repossession Court paperwork instead of ''Cumbernauld mortgage funding PLC''? An agent without title does not have lawful right to pursue the claim through Court in their own name and would need the title holder in the capacity of co-claimant in the very least or Power of Attorney (difficult in certain jurisdictions of the SPV). An undisclosed agent being exposed in Court proceedings is fatal to the case, the moreso if said agent is party to a fee, remuneration or commission.Check out amex in Brighton (American Express Services Europe LTD.) credit card issuer? No. Credit card ''servicer'' there''s a very big difference legally. A very big difference. The Banks, Parliament and the OFT are aware of the situation. The OFT primarily because a consumer debt cannot be enforced if any party to that debt other than the debtor is unlicensed for the purposes of consumer credit. Oh dear most of the SPV''s  do not carry consumer credit licences. Somewhat of an oversight by those involved in setting up the SPV''s and drawing up the deeds etc. The whole securitisation model appeared from nowhere really in the early 1990''s nobody is entirely sure how it works, there are some good explanations available but they all contain presumptions or gaps. The biggest problem faced is that they have to comply with existing legislation and there were just too many laws and regulations for them to be brought into force in the UK with the speed at which they were. The net result mistakes have been made, you can believe me or not on that one but I say they made mistakes and in the next couple of years the doo doo is really going to hit the fan if the legislation does not get through parliament in time.The biggest getout clause for the banking system is the Government. Let''s not forget the Gov are now an intrinsic part of the banking system by default and so have more than a vested interest. There is much work going into damage limitation at the moment, lots of special comitttee meetings etc. pretty hush, hush stuff as let''s be honest nobody wants the banking system in this country to fail completely lleast of all the Government.But the truth is out and there are test cases going through the Courts. I am personally aware of one small claims case from the South West awaiting a high Court date. If you are familiar with the small claims track you''ll know somethings up when it goes to that but it has been moved from the area and presented to the higher Court because the defendant is a very influential financial services provider and in a lot of trouble over a very simple matter. The other is again a small claims case that''s escalated to fast track due to the complexity. Can''t tell you who is involved but it''s a Bank and turns out they''ve been maintained champertously by a a very large institution. They are throwing Barristers from London chambers at a case in the Midlands because if they lose; in their own words ''this will mean they have £800,000,000'' of unenforceable debt'' on their books this being the value of the fund under scrutiny.As for our club I have not seen the securitisation deed for sure but would anticipate that a high risk business model like a football club would in the very least have bankruptcy remoteness incorporated into the securitisation deed  (nobody is as foolish as Delia when it comes to investing in a football club remember). No investment fund manager in his right mind would buy bonds in a fund which was liable to the creditors of an english league football club and that works both ways albeit I concede that there will be some remission as you state in the event the SPV went into liquidation. Of course had we been a bit harder nosed we''d have a proper securitisation model in place like the big credit card companies who use a fee driven profit model which basically is now proving that once sold the card issuer can drive up the interest and fees on the cardholder account and if the cardholder defaults the issuer doesn''t give a flying monkeys because he''s already been paid up front and can make more out the cardholder before they default than they would in years of servicing the account.Step forward MBNA, GE Capital and American Express, take a deep bow.I do understand that you understand the process Bobzilla but your understanding appears a little ''text book'' to me. This is not a criticism just an observation which tells me you are on the inside looking out. From my position on the outside looking in we see things pretty well the same but slightly differently.Time will tell who is right. I''m quietly confident that far from being the great solution it appeared history will eventually tell us that securitisation is nothing more than yet another cleverly described pyramid scheme and the big problem is that the money at the bottom tier has to all intents and purposes dried up.That''s a Ponzi scheme to you Yankee, I would quote you the exact phrase from The Canterville Ghost but I''m determined to get through this entire post with no cutting or pasting (though the environmentalist in me gives me more of a less destructive copy and paste persona) and I worry I''d get one small word wrong and you''d be on my back about it. Plenty above to discuss if you fancy anything slightly meatier than sniping at me to pass your time. We could talk about the Federal Reserve bailout of certain companies leading to the US Government being double exposed on certain toxic debts but of course the great American Public doesn''t know about the initial Federal interest in the first place, mind you they''ve done a pretty good job of hiding it over the years. But as they say in America ''The truth is out there'' they just rely on you not looking for it.

[The Fish Seller 0]

As usual I''ll supply some evidence to back up my statement.Click here link for an RBs/Natwest prospectus. Now these are two of the more scrupluous players and any assignatation is equitable and of the benefit of the receivables only. IE these accounts are still owned by the originator unlike certain other banks securitised accounts but we''ll not go there. This is the business model you refer to Bobzilla.Skip forward and you''ll see where the problem arises that I mention.Page 170.Copy and paste alert!!!!!!!!  But only a short one.As regards receivables that are governed by English law, lack of notice to the cardholder meansthat, for procedural purposes, the receivables trustee will have to join the relevant originator as aparty to any legal action that the receivables trustee may want to take against any cardholder.

And this is where the problem lies. Proceeedings will be brought by RBS or Natwest. Proceedings will not be brought by Natwest and South Gyle Receivables Trustee Limited) otherwise the cats out the bag. No notice of assignment to the ''debtor'' and the assignment is not perfected in law. Whoops!!  So if you don''t pay your mortgage to Natwest or your RBS Visa card and they take you to Court.........Well it would be wrong to tell you what to do but the clues are in front of you.[:)]

[YankeeCanary 0]

Good Lord! I think I touched a nerve Buckethead. Bet you don''t have your fillings done without freezing.

[The Fish Seller 0]

No pain no gain Yankee, what''s a little jolt to the nervous system in return for the chance to get one more establishmentarian to step back and take a look from a slightly different perspective? Maybe I''m perverse but somebody has to push people to question. Bobzilla has presented a very accurate interpretation of the securitisation structure in this country, I cannot argue with anything he says but as ever the devil is in the detail. Or it might be more relevant to state that the devil is not in the detail since the small problem of title for legal proceedings is not particularly well known and some very large businesses would like it to stay that way. True debt sale secs. it''s a foregone certainty, the equitable secs. that Bobzilla references well it''s in the small print (very occasionally) sometimes they ''forget'' to include it.They know and always have known it''s a flawed business model they just managed to hide it for long enough to make some seriously large returns.If you check out my link and look on page 170 you''ll see that even with an equitable assignment of benefits of receivables only, both parties must co-claim in proceedings to seek recovery. Unfortunately even if they wanted to, many of the SPV''s are out of UK jurisdiction and are not lawfully permitted to conduct consumer credit activities in the UK so that''s a complete non-starter. I believe the US of A is about to undergo a similar ''Revelation'' in the coming months.ps who owns amex?[:D]

[YankeeCanary 0]

Buckethead, as you wax eloquent to your perceived adoring fans on this forum ( and surely there must be one or two ) you should exercise caution in misleading those who may become disciples of you as their chosen guru.

A pyramid scheme is not a Ponzi scheme to me, or anyone else for that matter who understands both. A pyramid scheme clearly gives those that invest in the earlier stages of the scheme ( not just the originator ) an opportunity to make money as opposed to those closer to and at the base of the pyramid, who will not. A Ponzi scheme is designed to reward the originator as he/she pays out returns to existing investors from the incoming moneys from new investors. This continues until the originator has seen the total amount of money in their possession meet their target, before they suddenly pull the plug and all those that have invested see their "assets" disappear in a cloud of smoke. Both schemes are illegal in civilised environments and, while they have similarities, they are clearly different.

Just a small point to help you build credibility to your knowledge base as you continue to proliferate with the masses.    

[Camuldonum 0]

Other clubs in the Championship with problems looming are Plymouth who called all the non playing staff to a meeting last week and told them there would be around 50 redundancies because of a "severe loss of revenue."   A fairly hefty loss is expected to be posted when the accounts are published next month.  According to the local football reporter they are expected to shed some players at the end of the season and scrap the Reserve team.  Losses are put down to rising costs (mostly player wages), falling gates and a slump in club shop sales. 

Plymouth claim to have the smallest number of non playing staff in the Championship but are now looking at making some jobs part-time.

Capital One are pulling out of sponsoring Notts Forest at the end of the season.  Their deal worth about £5-6m has been running since 2003.

 

[singing canary 0]

i have just read on news now .... southampton , they still face losing ten points today

i dont want to come across evil  but i hope they do !!!

[Camuldonum 0]

For what it''s worth the Football League press office say that under current rules holding companies going into admin would not face a points deduction unless the football club itself does (as previously mentioned on this thread).  They have asked Southampton for details of the administration and the matter is expect to be considered at a board meeting next Tuesday.

The current board members, for those interested are:

Lord Mawhinney (Chairman and casting vote if necessary)

Ian Ritchie (independent member)

David Sheepshanks (Ipswich Town)

Neil Doncaster (Norwich City)

Terry Robinson (Sheffield United)

Peter Powell (Colchester United)

Lorraine Rogers (Tranmere Rovers)

Anthony Kleanthous (Barnet).

At least three lawyers among that lot - Mr Doncaster and Mr Powell and Lorraine Rogers  (a specialist in Company law) although she is due to retire from the Board at the end of this season because she is ending her association with Tranmere.   I would think this situation has the potential to drag on for weeks and possibly beyond the playing season.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

I think he cuts and pastes. A lot of us do that on occasion but it helps to make sure you understand the material you are using.

[/quote]Wow surprise Yankee pops his head up.

Time will tell who is right. I''m quietly confident that far from being the great solution it appeared history will eventually tell us that securitisation is nothing more than yet another cleverly described pyramid scheme and the big problem is that the money at the bottom tier has to all intents and purposes dried up.That''s a Ponzi scheme to you Yankee, I would quote you the exact phrase from The Canterville Ghost but I''m determined to get through this entire post with no cutting or pasting (though the environmentalist in me gives me more of a less destructive copy and paste persona) and I worry I''d get one small word wrong and you''d be on my back about it. Plenty above to discuss if you fancy anything slightly meatier than sniping at me to pass your time. We could talk about the Federal Reserve bailout of certain companies leading to the US Government being double exposed on certain toxic debts but of course the great American Public doesn''t know about the initial Federal interest in the first place, mind you they''ve done a pretty good job of hiding it over the years. But as they say in America ''The truth is out there'' they just rely on you not looking for it.

[/quote]agreed imo also bucket - unregulated and off-shored - it was bound to happen - and has...but as our MP''s have proved with their expenses - if you put temptation peoples way...moreover the planets money men are still resisting efforts to ban theirs discredited shadow banking sector and the off-shore havens that have enabled them to wheel and deal and fraud in private///g20  -  in their pockets???looks like it...[:''(]

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

If Southampton were to survive this season and it is still quite possible then the final team to be relegated would with confidence pursue a sheffield utd type package against west ham. I hate to see any club in financial difficulties but rules are rules. The bottom line is no matter how this is packaged up Southampton have gone bust, who will pay the players wages, they are all assets for the administrators to dispose as is the ground. If they have sense they would take the 10 points now rather than next season which would represent their best chance of promotion

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

the way football is run in this country Lowe will just visit his mates at the FA, squeeze the correct nuckle here, lift the occasional trouser leg and Bob''s your grand wizard, no points deduction.

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

I think he cuts and pastes. A lot of us do that on occasion but it helps to make sure you understand the material you are using.

[/quote]

Wow surprise Yankee pops his head up.

I suggest he of all people would be in an expert position to pass critique on the situation.
Seeing as how the three most exposed companies in the World are Bank of America (MBNA), American Express and General Electric Capital. Time will tell us just how faulty those securitisation deeds are but in the meantime one can only wonder why companies such as amex are foreclosing accounts of previous good standing as if there''s no tommorrow and have even resorted to offering a $300 golden goodbye handshake to selected account holders who are given a rsvp pin which automatically cancels their account when entered on the amex website. There''s a large amount of money sitting off the coast of the UK sold and title duly assigned under LOP 1925 to various SPV''s. Maybe it''s something to do with the way the credit accounts have been securitised sorry securitized? Are you actually aware Yankee of the vast amount of restructuring going on behind scenes at amex and GE Capital right now these two companies are desperate to liquidate millions of accounts worldwide not because of a cash shortage which there is admittedly but before the world wakes up to the situation.

 I inderstand what Bobzilla says regarding the equitable assignment model but what the banks have often opted for is absolute assignment of the debt to the SPV. The advantages are (1) Bankruptcy remoteness in so far as the SPV cannot be held liable to creditors of the originator and (2) The SPV is able to receive a credit rating for the bond issues independently of the originators standing (very important at a time when general banking stock is being downgraded frequently). Without the benefits appointed by virtue of (1) and (2) above the investor might as well just purchase bonds issued directly by the originator lower yield but more established and likely safer in the long term. You''ll find that HMRC are also of the same opinion that many of these assignments under securitisation deals are absolute and represent true sale/asset backed securitisations (well why wouldn''t they be, that''s how the accounts are presented?). Not all by any means but many of these deals do involve several well known High street names who use complex multi tiered servicing and investment models (take a look at gracechurch card funding to see exactly what happens with something as simple as your barclaycard) often involving more than one assignment of the original debt portfolio for maximum depth of securitisation.
The biggest problem the banking system has or more accurately will have is that they have as you aver secretly been acting as undisclosed agents for the owner of the debt. Are you aware how simple it is to knock a case out of Court in such circumstances where an undisclosed fee/commision arrangement is in place or the legal implications of ''Barclays Bank'' being on your repossession Court paperwork instead of ''Cumbernauld mortgage funding PLC''? An agent without title does not have lawful right to pursue the claim through Court in their own name and would need the title holder in the capacity of co-claimant in the very least or Power of Attorney (difficult in certain jurisdictions of the SPV). An undisclosed agent being exposed in Court proceedings is fatal to the case, the moreso if said agent is party to a fee, remuneration or commission.

Check out amex in Brighton (American Express Services Europe LTD.) credit card issuer? No. Credit card ''servicer'' there''s a very big difference legally. A very big difference. The Banks, Parliament and the OFT are aware of the situation. The OFT primarily because a consumer debt cannot be enforced if any party to that debt other than the debtor is unlicensed for the purposes of consumer credit. Oh dear most of the SPV''s  do not carry consumer credit licences. Somewhat of an oversight by those involved in setting up the SPV''s and drawing up the deeds etc. The whole securitisation model appeared from nowhere really in the early 1990''s nobody is entirely sure how it works, there are some good explanations available but they all contain presumptions or gaps. The biggest problem faced is that they have to comply with existing legislation and there were just too many laws and regulations for them to be brought into force in the UK with the speed at which they were. The net result mistakes have been made, you can believe me or not on that one but I say they made mistakes and in the next couple of years the doo doo is really going to hit the fan if the legislation does not get through parliament in time.
The biggest getout clause for the banking system is the Government. Let''s not forget the Gov are now an intrinsic part of the banking system by default and so have more than a vested interest. There is much work going into damage limitation at the moment, lots of special comitttee meetings etc. pretty hush, hush stuff as let''s be honest nobody wants the banking system in this country to fail completely lleast of all the Government.
But the truth is out and there are test cases going through the Courts. I am personally aware of one small claims case from the South West awaiting a high Court date. If you are familiar with the small claims track you''ll know somethings up when it goes to that but it has been moved from the area and presented to the higher Court because the defendant is a very influential financial services provider and in a lot of trouble over a very simple matter. The other is again a small claims case that''s escalated to fast track due to the complexity. Can''t tell you who is involved but it''s a Bank and turns out they''ve been maintained champertously by a a very large institution. They are throwing Barristers from London chambers at a case in the Midlands because if they lose; in their own words ''this will mean they have £800,000,000'' of unenforceable debt'' on their books this being the value of the fund under scrutiny.

As for our club I have not seen the securitisation deed for sure but would anticipate that a high risk business model like a football club would in the very least have bankruptcy remoteness incorporated into the securitisation deed  (nobody is as foolish as Delia when it comes to investing in a football club remember). No investment fund manager in his right mind would buy bonds in a fund which was liable to the creditors of an english league football club and that works both ways albeit I concede that there will be some remission as you state in the event the SPV went into liquidation.

Of course had we been a bit harder nosed we''d have a proper securitisation model in place like the big credit card companies who use a fee driven profit model which basically is now proving that once sold the card issuer can drive up the interest and fees on the cardholder account and if the cardholder defaults the issuer doesn''t give a flying monkeys because he''s already been paid up front and can make more out the cardholder before they default than they would in years of servicing the account.

Step forward MBNA, GE Capital and American Express, take a deep bow.

I do understand that you understand the process Bobzilla but your understanding appears a little ''text book'' to me. This is not a criticism just an observation which tells me you are on the inside looking out. From my position on the outside looking in we see things pretty well the same but slightly differently.

Time will tell who is right. I''m quietly confident that far from being the great solution it appeared history will eventually tell us that securitisation is nothing more than yet another cleverly described pyramid scheme and the big problem is that the money at the bottom tier has to all intents and purposes dried up.

That''s a Ponzi scheme to you Yankee, I would quote you the exact phrase from The Canterville Ghost but I''m determined to get through this entire post with no cutting or pasting (though the environmentalist in me gives me more of a less destructive copy and paste persona) and I worry I''d get one small word wrong and you''d be on my back about it. Plenty above to discuss if you fancy anything slightly meatier than sniping at me to pass your time. We could talk about the Federal Reserve bailout of certain companies leading to the US Government being double exposed on certain toxic debts but of course the great American Public doesn''t know about the initial Federal interest in the first place, mind you they''ve done a pretty good job of hiding it over the years. But as they say in America ''The truth is out there'' they just rely on you not looking for it.



[/quote]

I think I''ll just wait for the film to come out...

[Pete Raven 276]

Looks like our main sponsor and our Chief Executive could have a say in the matter....

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Sport&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Sport&itemid=NOED02%20Apr%202009%2009%3A30%3A56%3A617

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]

Looks like our main sponsor and our Chief Executive could have a say in the matter....

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Sport&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Sport&itemid=NOED02%20Apr%202009%2009%3A30%3A56%3A617

[/quote]

Come off it Pete, you lot couldn''t even predict Gunn getting the job after the Barnsley game could you?................unlike me![;)]

[Pete Raven 276]

I don''t remember us ruling him out...

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

 

From how I see it the Football League will be looking very closely at who is acually running Southampton once the holding company goes into administration.  If the administrators are running the football club (which I think is likely) then surely they are in administration no matter the ins and outs of the holding company, and a 10 point deduction will ensue.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

A pyramid scheme is not a Ponzi scheme to me, or anyone else for that matter who understands both. A pyramid scheme clearly gives those that invest in the earlier stages of the scheme ( not just the originator ) an opportunity to make money as opposed to those closer to and at the base of the pyramid, who will not. A Ponzi scheme is designed to reward the originator as he/she pays out returns to existing investors from the incoming moneys from new investors. This continues until the originator has seen the total amount of money in their possession meet their target, before they suddenly pull the plug and all those that have invested see their "assets" disappear in a cloud of smoke. Both schemes are illegal in civilised environments and, while they have similarities, they are clearly different.

[/quote]Sounds to me like a ''pyramid'' is simply a ''ponzi'' which is allowed to run full term until the investment at the lowest tier dries up.Well I wonder how many people in the UK or US for that matter have seen the value of their pension or any endowment they might hold go down in the last few years as their life savings were piled into the purchase of bonds at the bottom of said pyramid by the brokers and bankers? The income has slowed down considerably in the last 18 months, we can only sit back and wait to see what happens to the brave new world of banking when that bottom tier income dries up altogether like it did in say Northern Rock.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]I don''t remember us ruling him out...[/quote]

On the 16/1/09...............you said Pete:

''''Bryan Gunn will not be the next permanent manager of Norwich City''''.

Which was on page 3 of the thread below:

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/3/1539748/ShowPost.aspx#1539748

Oh deary dear![:D]

[ca 1]

[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]

Looks like our main sponsor and our Chief Executive could have a say in the matter....

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Sport&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Sport&itemid=NOED02%20Apr%202009%2009%3A30%3A56%3A617

[/quote]

 

Whats it got to do with Doncaster or haven''t I read it properly?

[AJ 1,235]

[quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]I don''t remember us ruling him out...[/quote]

On the 16/1/09...............you said Pete:

''''Bryan Gunn will not be the next permanent manager of Norwich City''''.

Which was on page 3 of the thread below:

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/3/1539748/ShowPost.aspx#1539748

Oh deary dear![:D]

[/quote]Isn''t he only a temporary manager til the end of the season, Wiz?

[LQ 0]

Our CE is on the board of the Football League (and the FA) so if there are any strange manipulations of the rules taking place that mean SFC don''t end up taking a points deduction he''ll be one of the people looking into it, CA.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="AJ"][quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]I don''t remember us ruling him out...[/quote]

On the 16/1/09...............you said Pete:

''''Bryan Gunn will not be the next permanent manager of Norwich City''''.

Which was on page 3 of the thread below:

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/3/1539748/ShowPost.aspx#1539748

Oh deary dear![:D]

[/quote]

Isn''t he only a temporary manager til the end of the season, Wiz?
[/quote]

Oh thats splitting hairs AJ, in the context of the linked thread, Pete knew what I meant at that time..........so did you![:D]

[Foxy is a Pleasure 0]

[quote user="cityangel"][quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]

Looks like our main sponsor and our Chief Executive could have a say in the matter....

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Sport&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Sport&itemid=NOED02%20Apr%202009%2009%3A30%3A56%3A617

[/quote]

 

Whats it got to do with Doncaster or haven''t I read it properly?

[/quote]

The Football League''s board - of which City chief executive Neil Doncaster is a member - meets next Tuesday and the subject of Southampton is guaranteed to come up.

Going to be very interesting to see what will happen with this

[Jim Smith 2,365]

Have got a mate in the media who deals with the FL and he''s pretty convinced they will get a 10 point penalty if the parent company goes into admin.

As has said above I think they will look at who is really running Southampton FC and this parent companies sole function is listed as running its subsidiary Southampton FC. It owns the ground, the training ground and I suspect employs all the non football employees. Lowe is even openly saying that going into admin is the only way to save Southampton FC so the two are clearly one and the same in practical terms even if legally there is a distinction.

At the end of the day as has been shown by the Leeds and Luton episodes the football league tend to do what they see fit in these circumstances and appear much more willing to tear up the rule book than the FA!

[Pete Raven 276]

[quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]I don''t remember us ruling him out...[/quote]

On the 16/1/09...............you said Pete:

''''Bryan Gunn will not be the next permanent manager of Norwich City''''.

Which was on page 3 of the thread below:

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/3/1539748/ShowPost.aspx#1539748

Oh deary dear![:D]

[/quote]

I was right then and am now. Gunn won''t be the next manager of Norwich City (insert winky smiley face here)

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"][quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]I don''t remember us ruling him out...[/quote]

On the 16/1/09...............you said Pete:

''''Bryan Gunn will not be the next permanent manager of Norwich City''''.

Which was on page 3 of the thread below:

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/3/1539748/ShowPost.aspx#1539748

Oh deary dear![:D]

[/quote]

I was right then and am now. Gunn won''t be the next manager of Norwich City (insert winky smiley face here)

[/quote]

No you wern''t, not even close............nor will you be when he''s appointed..........again![:D][;)]