VectisSaint

Nothing at all. On the other hand, no other party can satisfy our creditors until they are given guaranteed FL membership either so any other deal is also dead in the water. You'd better hope that Pinnacle do a deal, the alternative is an entry into the Wessex League.

If we were called West Ham the League would not be involved. And if you think the League are a problem, then the FA are far far worse.

Actually I don't believe we will. We will have cleared our debts in full and have a mortgage on the stadium as we had before. I don't believe anywhere is it agreed that the mortgage or any part of it has been or will be paid off. I would expect that Aviva will agree to a restructuring of the mortgage, but unless Pinnacle have actually agreed to pay the whole thing off I imagine that we will still have a mortgage in the end. I do howver believe that all the real creditors will have been paid in full, that is Barclays Bank and anyone who has had payments blocked since Lowe went over the agreed o/d limit in April.

True, but many people have Sky these days.

As they have since the 17th June when it was last updated.

You are absolutely right. The FL are not scared, we will lose any appeal, whether we have a case or not. And to all those who keep spouting that the FL are breaking the law or whatever, they are not, they are running a Members Club in accordance with the rules of that Club. No-one is being forced to act illegally in any way, shape or form. BUT, it does seem that what Pinnacle are looking to confirm is at least the right to appeal, and that is an altogether different matter. Mawhinney did state that we had the right to appeal, and it seems now thats what Pinnacle are trying to confirm. I doubt very much that they would actually appeal, because they are not that dumb (I hope) because the result of the appeal is a foregone conclusion. But to sign away the right of appeal sets a dangerous precendent for SFC and all other member clubs in the future and leaves us open to further punishments. All IMHO of course.

Agreed. As mentioned in the Guardian on Friday, the sticking point is with our Creditors, not directly with the FL (though the FL clearly hold the key to unblocking these issues). We need updates from the FL, then and only then can we make progress with the Creditors (I assume Barclays). I can see this process taking a few more days yet, meanwhile I have chewed my fingernails down to the elbow.

In my opinion the most compelling piece of reporting was in the Guardian last Friday, and is probably as close to the mark as anything else. It points to the issue being the creditors and not the FL, which makes sense to me at least. i don't recall anyone mentioning this one until yesterday when I posted it on other threads. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/19/southampton-takeover-pinnacle-consortium

How is it a "massive conflict of interest". It would be total madness if the FL Board did not comprise members who represented members interests, i.e. the Clubs. The member Clubs have voted for the representatives to sit on the Board (including Saints), together with the executive (professional administrative) members. This is absolutely no different to when Wiseman and then Lowe sat on the FA Premier League Board - they were elected there by their peers (quite why in the case of Lowe is beyond me but there we are). Almost every Members Club in the country is organised in a similar way, committees of members elected by the members. Clearly with something of the nature of the FL, some professional administrators are also appointed, plus some figureheads/buffoons such as Mawhinney.

People continue to see this as a Legal issue and therefore continue to miss the point. The issue is not "legal" it is an issue with regards to the rules of a Members Club. Those rules are set by the members (of whcih SFC was one, possibly isn't at the moment) and all members are bound by those rules. It has been demonstrated time and again in many sports that any court of arbitration or the like always (or nearly always) finds for the sporting body in question, because there is an understanding (and a perfectly reasonable one) that lawyers should not interfere with sporting regulations in any way. the only exception is where Clubs regulations would incite members to act illegally. To appeal against the 10 point deduction is completely futile, and is not the issue at hand. The issue is that our creditors have refused to sign a deal with Pinnacle until they have guarantees about our FL membership from the FL. This is what the FL are due to discuss today, and yes it probably depends on Pinnacle agreeing not to appeal, something which Pinnacle would be mad to do anyway because they would lose.

Have said in several threads that the issue is not the 10 point penalty, there is something else involved. Today I found this on the Guardian web site which perhaps sheds some more light on the matter, haven't seen this elsewhere, though I could have missed it amongst all the crap that is being written: "...[Pinnacle's] solicitors unhappy over two legal aspects of the negotiations with creditors. Principal among the concerns is that a notice of withdrawal, issued by the Football League when the club was deemed to be in insolvency proceedings, be withdrawn to ensure that Southampton can compete as a league club next term. "There are a number of very small issues that remain, the principal one of which is the Football League situation," said the joint-administrator, Mark Fry. "They have agreed to have an emergency meeting on Monday, but until any bidder can be satisfied about membership of the League they won't complete a purchase of the club." So the problem appears to be that one or more of our creditors are causing a problem, because they are concerned that FL may not let us play ball next season. Presumably Barclays are playing hard ball and want guarantees before agreeing to the deal with Pinnacle. So until Pinnacle get agreement with the FL about our membership of the League, the deal is blocked. That would explain why Pinnacle were not aware of a situation until the last minute. It is clearly Barclays or possibly one of the other creditors that has thrown the spanner in the works. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/19/southampton-takeover-pinnacle-consortium

I very much doubt the issue is the 10 points. If it was I don't think there would be an issue, Pinnacle would take the hit. Making up 10 points should not be a problem, Keegan amassed 101 points with Fulham, take 10 off that and 91 would still probably see us promoted. There is more to this that the simplistic view of appealing the 10 point penalty. In any case any appeal is also doomed to failure.

If only people could learn that it is the Football League and not the Football Association, then at least one good thing would have come out of this sorry mess.

No of course not. The man (and Wilde) is the reason we are in the **** in the first place. If he had been even half intelligent he would actually have ensure we went into administration a little earlier then we would not have a 10 point penalty this coming season at all. the guy is a *****, and no thanks should be going his way.

You want to bet. Abusive emails wil galvanise the FL view, especially if the FL is not the problem, as is possibly the case. By the way the murderers and dictators are more associated with the FA Premier League which you seem to wish to return to rather than the mere amateurs we are currently dealing with. There are far more amateurs in the FA, the FL was always the professional side of the game at least until 1992, thats why they have a grudge against teams that kicked them in the teeth in 1992, which of course includes Saints

You completely miss the point. You can sue to your hearts and wallets content. You will never win. As a Members Club they are a law unto themselves, precedents have been set several times when this has been attempted, the Law always finds in favour of the sporting body (members club). Always. I agree with you about Mawhinney, but its not about him, he has already made a fool of himself, but that won't change anything. I would like to see his expenses claims, sadly as he stood down as an MP in 2005 they are not published, redacted or otherwise.

Rupert Lowe

It may not be morally correct, but please people try to understand the FL is a Members Club, and they can organise themselves however they see fit. It is not controlled by any legalities (unless their rules require members to act illegally). It is no different to when we were in the Premier League and Lowe was on the Board, or for that matter Wiseman previously.

Well it certainly won't be A. In case it has escaped your notice we are currently not members of the FL, our new owners have applied for membership. No it will be a meeting including the professional administrators of the FL (possibly not Mawhinney who is a figurehead) plus the representatives of as many of the FL member clubs, possibly all 71 of them, looking at whether to allow our membership and whether any further punishment is warranted. Don't believe for 1 minute that the idea of rescinding the 10 point penalty will even be discussed.

There are some short-sighted (but maybe well meaning) idiots around, who can potentially do harm to the deal because they don't necessarily know what they are talking about. A protest today against the FL, when we don't even know for sure that the FL are the (only) problem. Beggars belief, I wonder if these are the same people who were planning to protest against the FA or to go to the HQ of the FL in London. And to those that think that the FL don't care aout Southampton. You are probably right. Don't forget we are one of the newest members of the Football League, and were one of the 20 founding members of the FA Premier League, who effectively consigned the FL to be a second-class organisation for the remainder of their existence having previously been the organisers of the top football competitioin in the world for over 100 years. Sour grapes, you bet.

Conclusion jumping again. How about this as an alternative, the even more evil Rupert Lowe or Wilde has some legal hold on some of the assets. No evidence of this, but is actually just as likely as the FL scenario. The FL issue has been known about for weeks, there is precedent for this, it is not the issue in my mind. Perhaps Lowe/Wilde are actually the legal owners of the FL License (the Golden Share) and require recompense before agreeing to hand it over. Complete speculation and probably utter tosh, but as much basis in fact as what is being said about the FL.

As I suspect, and a few others are beginning to do so, however unplatable it may seem, the FL are not necessarily the (only) bad guys here, the 10 points deduction and any appeal are probably not the blocking issue. The appeal situation is not new (there are previous examples, Leeds for instance) and this is not a legal issue. Something else is in play here. I still hope and (probably expect) that it will all work out, but to all those getting in a lather about the FL calm down, that MAY not be the problem.

A campaign against the FL when we don't even know any facts. Brilliant. We don't know for sure that the appeal against the 10 points is even an issue, we hope it is because the alternative scenario which no-one wants to contemplate is that Pinnacle have either been found wanting or have been completely naive. I don't believe for one minute that the only blocking issue is the right of appeal against the 10 point deduction, if it was an Pinnacle were confident they would take the 10 point deduction on the chin and plan to get promotion anyway, 10 points is not that much. No there is more to this than meets the eye.

I'm with you basically, this is not about the 10 point deduction. If it is then Pinnacle are complete knobs (and I don't think they are). There is something more, maybe its additional point deductions, maybe its something else. The 10 point deduction and the fact that it was not appealable was there all along, no there is something else occurring here. If it were about the 10 points then logic would say bugger it, we'll start with -10 and still walk this league (especially if there is decent money to invest)

Well Pinnacle are extremely naive then (I don't actually believe this is the case by the way, there is something more going on here). If it was they only needed to have looked back at what happened to Leeds to have realised that this would be the case, and so why leave it until the last minute. All of this crap about legal requirements is missing the point. This is not a criminal law case, or even a commercial law case. These are the rules of a members only club. The members only club can make whatever rules they like as long as they are agreed by the members, and do not require members to act illegally. In this case the FL have every right (however unfair it may seem) to impose rules and demand agreement to those rules before admitting someone (or Saints in this case) as a member. At this moment in time Saints do not have a leg to stand on and no amount of gnashing of teeth will change this fact.