The9

According to the HCDAJFU thread Boyle's contract expired yesterday... not sure how accurate that is - does anyone else miss the old saintsfc archive and the search facility ?

I'm glad you're confident. The FL have had ample opportunity to confirm this and haven't. They have also penalised clubs who HAVE a CVA (unagreed), never mind ones who don't even qualify for a CVA. One of us is going to be wrong, I hope it's me.

Or not, given that we were below this level for much of the club's first 40 years.

Check the HCADAJFU thread, did all that stuff this morning.

No, because the Football League blocked it.

So there are enough pointless arguments on this thread already, no ?

Genius. He cost us the chance of not having a 10 point deduction ? Damn Surman and his incompetent lawyers...

Bart signed 6th Jan 2006. Rasiak 8th Feb 06 (on loan) Simon Gillet made his debut as a sub on 28th January 2006, btw. Bialkowski started that game. English FA Cup - Round 4 - KO 15:00 Leicester 0 (0) - 1(0) Southampton Jones 90 At The Walkers Stadium on 28-01-2006 Leicester: Douglas ,McCarthy ,Gerrbrand ,Johansson ,Stearman ,Hughes ,Gudjonsson ,Smith ,Maybury ,Hume ,Hammond (De Vries ,67) Subs not used: O'Grady,Henderson,Wesolowski,Kisnorbo, Southampton: Bialkowski ,Baird ,Lundekvam ,Potter ,Brennan ,Dyer ,Oakley ,Higginbotham ,Prutton (Gillett ,36 ) ,Pahars ,Blackstock (Jones ,83) Subs not used Smith,Fuller,Cranie, Bookings: Stearman (Leicester) Blackstock (Southampton) Attendance: 20427 Oh, and Michael Poke was on the bench for the last game of the season against Charlton in the Prem in Spring 2004, but didn't actually play for Saints until 2008.

Nice work.

Not sure anyone's actually mentioned it on this thread though.

As for all the "Still on OS", has it occurred to you that updating squad details on the website might not be a task worth paying someone for at the moment...?

Bialkowski I should think.

What exactly are we supposed to have done to try and get out of it though ? I know Crouch spouted some utter cobblers about the reason the structure was as it is being to avoid punishment, but we all know that was nonsense as the structure predated the rules by a good 6 years. It's not the FL making an example, it's more they're just trying to stamp on anyone taking their authority and potentially subjecting it to a court of law, because it compromises the competition if it ends up with a court case hanging over it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1034116/Luton-Town-fuming-face-starting-League-Two-campaign-30-points-adrift.html That's the new owners of Luton, last season, slamming the FL for punishing them for misdemeanors of the previous administration. They were an completely separate company. It makes no difference, as the Wimbledon -> MK Dons debacle shows, it's the ownership of the golden share which determines what the FL recognises as "a club", not its legal ownership status. And yes, I know it says Luton had to sign the appeal waiver - but various teams prior to Leeds went through the same process without needing to. The only questions there are "did Pinnacle know this" (which is still irrelevant if they were potless but says much about either their competence or duplicity) and "why isn't it explicit in the sporting sanctions rules ?" Anyway, I've had enough of this argument!

You can argue the semantics all you like, and I'm on your side with it, but FL rules state you need an agreed CVA to come out of Admin or its a points deduction. Any further decision would be entirely at the whim of the people who make the -10 judgement, which doesn't give me grounds for optimism. I also think all this is entirely irrelevant to the whole Pinnacle failure, FWIW, but that doesn't stop me thinking the FL hasn't provided an appropriate level of communication to clarify the complex issues for fear of opening themselves up to litigation.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Pinnacle's main problem was that they didn't have the cash, but to say the FL's position (even in not clarifying all of this earlier, never mind the vagaries of their various statements) is not in any way contributing to the problem is a bit simplistic, especially given the impact of their previous rulings on the likes of Rotherham and Luton. I also think you're wrong that if Pinnacle had the money we wouldn't be 25 points down - due to the unequivocal requirement for an agreed CVA in the insolvency rules - but the only way we'll find out is if someone else takes over and we somehow stay on -10, which is frankly a best case scenario we should now be grateful for.

It's not a point of membership, it's a point of financial law. You can't have a CVA if you're not in admin, and the FL rules demand a CVA, not any other kind of agreement with creditors, no matter how happy the creditors might be. I just hope we get the chance to find out who's right one way or another.

Slowly over the course of the next 80 years would be my answer to that one...

Eh ? All I've said is they're making damn sure no-one points the finger at them, which is obviously what they're doing. I'm not interested in who's to blame, that's a bit 2007 for my liking, just in having a football club at all.

Who's starting on -25 ?

That's "Paphitis", and Michelle from this board posted a few weeks ago that she actually asked him to his face to take Saints over (repeatedly, in Cyprus I think it was, on a works incentive holiday thingy), and he wasn't interested.

Yeah, and then I moaned at you for being repetitive!

Whether it's true or not, they would say that wouldn't they ? Football League in "tries to wash its hands of club bankrupcy" non-shocker.