Beer Engine

nothing by the look of it ..

2 minutes to go ...

Look Steve, I know you're an administrator and all that but do you have to come on here talking about FOOTBALL?

I reckon it's going to happen this afternoon - just a hunch - not ITK at all

Imagination - Just an Illusion

Don't know really - suppose if they get caught diving in the penalty area then they get carded and eventually banned for a few games. My pet hate is shirt tugging in the area - it really spoils the game - and seems to have become the norm ...

Don't worry - my keyboard's a bit doggy too ..

It's not about the right to appeal to the Football League - there is only one ground on which to appeal to the FL relating to "Force Majeure" which we do not fulfil and anyway the time limit for lodging an appeal passed ages ago. It's about us waiving any right we may have to apply to a tribunal other than the FL(arbitration panel/high court etc) to have the FL's decision overturned or annulled.

Yes - the right to appeal against the decision to deduct 10 points? That's how I read it too - but I'm starting to doubt my own sanity!

I originally thought that the 10 points deduction was done and dusted so the last minute argie bargie must about trying to get the FL to cap their sanctions at 10 points regardless of the eventual fate of SLH plc. Obviously, that would be worth arguing about. But one of Tony Lynam's updates said: "I want to make something crystal clear. I have NOT ASKED for a decision about the 10 point deduction. I have met every condition within the Football Leagues own rules, and thus should be allowed the right to an appeal after our takeover is complete, should I wish to take that action. As I have explained to countless people involved - detach yourself from the situation, and lose your emotional ties for a moment, and just ask yourself one question. “If I am being asked to waive my rights to an appeal against a decision, how confident are the people who made that decision that it was the correct decision in the first place?” Although this point is expressed in opaque language, I read it to mean that the issue IS the 10 points deduction....? Anyone?

Whatever the outcome of our discussions on here - I have to say that it's all gone very quiet on the official announcements front. I have a feeling that Pinnacle will complete the takeover this afternoon ... Usual disclaimers.

No I haven't heard this announced either - but either way the entire business of the entire football club is going to be under new ownership. Either all those assets and liabilities will be transferred to an entirely new company or those assets previously under the control and ownership of SLH plc and the stadium company etc will be hived down into SFC Limited.

Hi Pancake My feeling is that our right of appeal is not being "taken away". It's more a case that we are trading it away in return for Saints newco being granted (a) league membership without having to treck up through the non-league pyramid (b) automatic promotion to League 1 © the aquisition of the old club's assets at a fraction of their market price (d) the ability to trade at the expense of the old company's unpaid creditors. I have to say that it seems like a very good deal for us.

Like everyone else here, I care passionately about our club. My instincts tell me that Pinnacle are unable or reluctant to complete the takeover for reasons unconnected with the points deduction. I would like them to ***t or get off the pot because I fear that the club might fold before the start of next season.

Saints 2009 will be a new company/club applying to join the Football league. It will have picked up the assets of Southampton Football Club for less than the value of the club's debts at the expense of unpaid creditors. The FL are offering us 2 concessions (1) league membership other than through promotion via the non-league pyramid and (2) automatic promotion to the third tier. In return for those concessions and by way of offsetting the competitive advantage that the club obtained by living well beyond its means in the recent past and becoming insolvent, the FL is imposing a relatively small points deduction in the first year of membership - a deduction that is automatic in accordance with the Regulations agreed by all league members as recently as 2004. If we accept the FL's offer of membership then the FL will need to be certain that these arrangements are not going to be overturned and subsequently cause chaos - so we either accept this deal by waiving our appeal rights or we join another league. Put simply - we fans get a new club, a club that is being effectively subsidised by our unpaid creditors - we also get league membership and automatic promotion to the third division. All in all agreeing once and for all to a 10 points deduction sounds fair to me.

In these circumstances - yes I do think that it's fair. Sorry reasons swallowed by my computer will post later

Yes, but Steve, what it does demonstrate is that the FA's own arbitration process will support clauses in FL membership agreements that waive so-called rights to "appeal" against the FL's sanctions - whatever they are. The High Court will not review decisions of sports' governing bodies - so where do you go to try and overturn an FL sanction that is fair anyway? My feeling is that this deal is on the rocks - the FL cannot back down - so Pinnacle must eat their own ****ocks (as they say in Italy) or walk away ..

The definition of a "football club" under the FL Regulations is essentially circular. A "club" is an "association football club" or words to that effect. If the assets and liabilities that comprise and are essential to the continuance of a "club" are spread out over a number of companies within a group under the control of a holding company then it is entirely reasonable for the FL to treat an insolvency event occuring at one or more of those companies as one that affects the "club" and brings the sporting sanctions into play. Whatever the deficiencies in the FL's drafting of the Regulations there is nothing in those Regulations to support the contention that they only apply to "clubs" which are 100% owned by a single entity. The FL's statement on the points deduction is bombproof both technically and morally IMHO - essentially what they were saying is that if all the assets and liabilities of Southampton Football Club had been vested in a single trading entity such as SFC Limited then that trading entity would have been insolvent. No tribunal is going to support an argument of dubious technical and moral merit in order to overturn a sanction that itself has greater technical merit and undoubted moral merit. To take the point further:- There is an appeal mechanism which is specific to the 10 points deduction. The sole ground of appeal is "Force Majeure" - ie the club would need to prove that the insolvency event was caused by an unforeseen event beyond the club's control - an example of such an event is given in the Regulations - being a situation where a club goes bust because another "club" has defaulted on payments due to it. What if Saints insolvency were due to the default of another club and that other "club" were set up like Saints and it was the holding company rather than one of its trading companies that technically owed Saints the money - if we apply the Fry/Pinnacle argument to that situation then that holding company is not a "club" within the meaning of the Regulations and so we would be denied an otherwise legitimate ground for appeal on the same technicality that we're trying to invoke now to avoid the imposition of the 10 point penalty. The postman always knocks twice ..

This what "new" Leeds had in their memebrship agreement with the FL:- 4.1 Leeds hereby release the League ... from all claims, whether known or unknown to Leeds, which Leeds has or may have against [the League] arising out of or connected, whether directly or indirectly with ... the conduct of the League with regards to OldCo, the Conditions and the imposition of the sanction or, if passed, the Appeal Sanction (the “Claims”). (Emphasis added) 4.2 Except for the obligations created by this Agreement Leeds hereby covenants that it shall not ... commence, or threaten to commence any proceedings in any jurisdiction before any court, arbitration body ... against [the League] ... arising out of or connected, whether directly or indirectly with any of the Claims”. (Emphasis added) And the arbitration panel upheld it on "appeal" under the FA rules. Surely Pinnacle or their lawyers or Fryor his lawyers must have known about this from the off.

Pinnacle know that the FL cannot back down under any circumstances - not only was their decision technically OK and fair but there would also be chaos next season if we got our 10 points back. Every League 1 team that to be adversely affected by such a decision, in terms of relegation or promotion, would bring proceedings against the FL to have the decision annulled or to claim damages. Pinnacle have said that they will not back down as a matter of principle - how ****ing ridiculous - all they are doing is setting the scene for a "justified withdrawal" from the takeover - they want out and to save face into the bargain. Fry is damn right to be talking to other bidders ...

1. The FL's decision is entirely lawful on technical grounds. 2. The FL's decision is fair on moral grounds. 3. The right to "appeal" against a decision that would be upheld on "appeal" is worthless. 4. Even if we waive our right to appeal in our membership contract we can still go to arbitration under Paragraph K of the FA Rules, as Leeds did in similar circumstances. 5. If we do go to arbitration, our claim to have the points deduction overturned will not be allowed. 6. If the "appeal" issue is so important why was it not addressed with FL at the outset rather than at the end of the exclusivity period? 7. Any further delay in preparing for next season will probably cost us 10 points anyway. It's obvious that the "appeal" is issue is a red herring which has been introduced either: (a) to sort out more fundamental problems with the deal or (b) because Pinnacle haven't raised the money. So what do you kick Mr L - ass or tyres?

Forever and Ever Demis Roussos I'm very sorry

It would be morally right if our club paid off all of its debts in full right away ... Is that in front of him? I getting a big whiff here

Yes I agree - and who can blame Pinnacle for attempting some positive risk management. What surprises me is that it took them until the day before completion to address the issue. I really don't understand that. Having said that, if the price Pinnacle pay for the club goes down then they will presumably have more cash to flash on a manager and players ...?