Trader Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Sorry ..... you don't see it then ??? Why would he come back? His shares in SLH are now worthless, so he can't recoup his money. Maybe its because he's so popular with the supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 fgs will it ever end. Might be sooner than we think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 If we were to sign the form requested and it was proven an unlawful demand what next? An appeal to allow an appeal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Sorry ..... you don't see it then ??? No i dont....where would he get the funds from for a start.......and secondly if you were a creditor who felt done over by him and his mates would you really accept a fraction of the debt owed ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Only with us, eh? Poopey will reveal that their new owners are arms dealers and torturers but the FA will find some polite way round rocking their Prem boat, because a number of their little gang of owners don't stand up to close scrutiny, while we will be shafted out of existence over some technicality and a tawdry t*sspot Tory tw*t like Mawhinney taking a stand on principle for the first time in his tawdry t*sspot Tory tw*ttish life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 to be fair to SSN, they are just stating that as the deadline has past, other offers can now be considered, which we all knew anyway as the exclusitivity period has past Not until midnight ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaroid Saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I'm off down the football league's offices, wearing a green armband. who's with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 If pinnacle walk becuse of this then what does that say about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 No i dont....where would he get the funds from for a start.......and secondly if you were a creditor who felt done over by him and his mates would you really accept a fraction of the debt owed ??? I'm not saying HE has the funds ..... just that he IS involved with one of the interested partys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tac-tics Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I am soo angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint77 Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 i can't believe that pinnacle will walk becuse of the 10points theres no way fry or pinnacle will let this deal fall through it will happen but the price may be lowered to say allow for additional season in div 1 imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 If pinnacle walk becuse of this then what does that say about them? I give up? What does it say about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I'm angry, frustrated, gutted and bitter at the minute. Surely what the Football League are asking us to do is illegal? They can't blackmail us into not appealing. We have a right to appeal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I think that signing under duress could possibly be overturned if taken to court. It is SFC which has already signed this agreement but it's the Owner being liquidated. The Buyer could hardly be forced to sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin C Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 But do we know who the money man is yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Does anyone actually know where all the main players are ?? (TL, MLT, MF etc.. ) Are they in an office together at SMS or are they spread around the city ? Is it just because the Sky reporter is outside the stadium that we are assuming this ? I guess if somebody sees them leave before any announcement then we'll know that nothing will happen till Monday grrrrrr....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxi_sopez Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 fffs so waiting to come home to get the confirmation le tiss chairman and all this, and now this happens! also we done for today or are they still working to solve it tonight ?!!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 all over til Monday at earliest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 fffs so waiting to come home to get the confirmation le tiss chairman and all this, and now this happens! also we done for today or are they still working to solve it tonight ?!!?! No idea, Mr Lynam's note didnt indicate either way. I would assume thats it until Monday's meeting but who knows ? If Pinnacle lawyers say whatever the FL get them to sign is not a legally binding document due to its content then they could complete tonight....but its doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 How fair will the FL look if they let a club go out of business just because they were not willing to let a fair impartial trbunal look at their decision on points? They would look awful and IMHO wouldn't let it happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 If we were to sign the form requested and it was proven an unlawful demand what next? An appeal to allow an appeal? The whole issue does NOT make sense ... The Football League have Rules .. OK One of those Rules relates to imposing Points penalty's if Clubs go into Admin ... OK It MUST also be in their Rules, that APPEALS against such penalty's ARE allowed, as EVERY Team that has had such deductions, HAVE Appealed .... unsuccessfully of course, but they HAVE appealed Was this point Raised by the legal Big Wigs of Pinnacle ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxi_sopez Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 How fair will the FL look if they let a club go out of business just because they were not willing to let a fair impartial trbunal look at their decision on points? They would look awful and IMHO wouldn't let it happen sadly i dont think the fl will care, and people may go thats a bit unfair but if they dont support saints they will move on and forget about us....... i am now at the "im sh!ting it stage" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 The whole issue does NOT make sense ... The Football League have Rules .. OK One of those Rules relates to imposing Points penalty's if Clubs go into Admin ... OK It MUST also be in their Rules, that APPEALS against such penalty's ARE allowed, as EVERY Team that has had such deductions, HAVE Appealed .... unsuccessfully of course, but they HAVE appealed Leeds didnt, they had to sign away their appeal rights to be accepted into the league just like Saints will have too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFKA South Woodford Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Surely Pinnacle wouldn't give up everything over the 10 points? Come on Tony - take it on the chin and let's all move on... Please read Derry's post above. The ten points is not the sum of the problem here. The crux of the matter is that Pinnacle have a deal agreed with the creditors for the assets of SLH, who as we all know went into administration. The problem here is that the Football Leagues position makes that deal unworkable, as they are saying that the club and SLH are one and the same, meaning that the only way that things can go ahead in the FL's mind is for Pinnacle to buy SLH. Meaning that they will then have to pay off all of SLH's debts rather than just the proportion that they have already agreed, thus making the deal so much more expensive. Why then would anyone 'let alone Pinnacle' pay more for the club and the assets than they really have to? That being the case, they are then leaving themselves open to legal recourse as Clapham and Derry have said. The issue is that they refuse to be wrong about the points deduction. They know that if they admit that they are wrong, it will leave them open to legal challenges from other teams that they have punished. The only thing that they can do, is back down about Pinnacle giving up their right to appeal, and then hope that Pinnacle do not succeed legally to overturn the deduction. Otherwise the unthinkable could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Octopus Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 It say's they won't be blackmailed into signing something that they don't agree with and have every right to appeal against! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Only with us, eh? Poopey will reveal that their new owners are arms dealers and torturers but the FA will find some polite way round rocking their Prem boat, because a number of their little gang of owners don't stand up to close scrutiny, while we will be shafted out of existence over some technicality and a tawdry t*sspot Tory tw*t like Mawhinney taking a stand on principle for the first time in his tawdry t*sspot Tory tw*ttish life Absolutely 100% spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 sadly i dont think the fl will care, and people may go thats a bit unfair but if they dont support saints they will move on and forget about us....... i am now at the "im sh!ting it stage" disagree. We would be big news to go out of existence - no exaggeration to say sort of issue that mp would raised in H of C. If it was purely on finances etc fine - but because they don't want an outsider looking at their rules??!! They would have big problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graymalkin33 Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 How fair will the FL look if they let a club go out of business just because they were not willing to let a fair impartial trbunal look at their decision on points? They would look awful and IMHO wouldn't let it happen They would look awfull but it would be soon forgotten. and yes they would let it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 disagree. We would be big news to go out of existence - no exaggeration to say sort of issue that mp would raised in H of C. If it was purely on finances etc fine - but because they don't want an outsider looking at their rules??!! They would have big problems Do you suppose the Southampton MPs have / might raise this matter? What a shame Tony Burnham isn't Sports Minister any more as he really seemed to be on the side of lower league clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 i think thats tonights echo ah only saw it quickly and posted before i had to go out and pick kids up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Sorry ..... you don't see it then ??? How did you manage to write a 6 word sentence yet still put in 5 full stops and 3 question marks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Do you suppose the Southampton MPs have / might raise this matter? What a shame Tony Burnham isn't Sports Minister any more as he really seemed to be on the side of lower league clubs. Or even his brother Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I cannot believe that Pinnacle can walk away simply because of the 10 point issue. I am almost certain that the Sales Pack information would have stated that the club was liable to a 10 point penalty next season. So again we are back to the dynamics, and one question has to be asked if it REALLY goes wrong. How was the deal structured and by whom? I am pretty certain that Pinnacle's bid was strutcured to fit what they were asked to do, not necessarily what they first thought they were GOING to do. Tony Lynam et al are probably having a bad evening, but I wonder who else is having an attack of the cold sweats at the moment What a fookin mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Please read Derry's post above. The ten points is not the sum of the problem here. The crux of the matter is that Pinnacle have a deal agreed with the creditors for the assets of SLH, who as we all know went into administration. The problem here is that the Football Leagues position makes that deal unworkable, as they are saying that the club and SLH are one and the same, meaning that the only way that things can go ahead in the FL's mind is for Pinnacle to buy SLH. Meaning that they will then have to pay off all of SLH's debts rather than just the proportion that they have already agreed, thus making the deal so much more expensive. Why then would anyone 'let alone Pinnacle' pay more for the club and the assets than they really have to? That being the case, they are then leaving themselves open to legal recourse as Clapham and Derry have said. The issue is that they refuse to be wrong about the points deduction. They know that if they admit that they are wrong, it will leave them open to legal challenges from other teams that they have punished. The only thing that they can do, is back down about Pinnacle giving up their right to appeal, and then hope that Pinnacle do not succeed legally to overturn the deduction. Otherwise the unthinkable could happen. The legal advice obviously says that the leagues rules do not apply to a club not in administration. The interpretation chosen by the league is not in accordance with any league rule. If SLH is wound up and SFC isn't they aren't inextricably linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Nobody is covering themselves in glory here. Typical Saints really. How many people actually thought something good might happen today. To leave all of this until now, quite frankly, is bewildering. I am sick of this whole roller coaster ride. Supporters are annoyed, and what about the club employees. B*llocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Or even his brother Andy :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackedoff Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Please read Derry's post above. The ten points is not the sum of the problem here. The crux of the matter is that Pinnacle have a deal agreed with the creditors for the assets of SLH, who as we all know went into administration. The problem here is that the Football Leagues position makes that deal unworkable, as they are saying that the club and SLH are one and the same, meaning that the only way that things can go ahead in the FL's mind is for Pinnacle to buy SLH. Meaning that they will then have to pay off all of SLH's debts rather than just the proportion that they have already agreed, thus making the deal so much more expensive. Why then would anyone 'let alone Pinnacle' pay more for the club and the assets than they really have to? That being the case, they are then leaving themselves open to legal recourse as Clapham and Derry have said. The issue is that they refuse to be wrong about the points deduction. They know that if they admit that they are wrong, it will leave them open to legal challenges from other teams that they have punished. The only thing that they can do, is back down about Pinnacle giving up their right to appeal, and then hope that Pinnacle do not succeed legally to overturn the deduction. Otherwise the unthinkable could happen. I think this is pretty close to the true facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I went out for an apperitivo at 13 pages o'clock and it's now up to 17, although at least the server hasn't crashed. Sod it, I'm powering down and off to drink a bottle of red, can't cope with the stress.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Originally Posted by up and away That's very interesting, but on that basis I cannot see the FL are on dodgy ground. The nub of the 10 point deduction is because the club could no longer effectively pay their bills. If you were to take the FL rules as a basis for trade between companies I could understand, but this is for the equitable running of a sporting body. We are no different to any other club that has gone into administration but for the exception of name only, on that basis we deserve the 10 point deduction. I really doubt the courts would rule against a sporting body for taking such action when we are as guilty as sin, but not in name. I could fully understanding the club having a very strong case if the FL informed us we would suffer no deduction for SLH going into administration prior to the deadline. The rules of a sporting body such as the FL are based upon the members having a fair and level playing field. I cannot see a court interfering in those issues when they have been doing excatly that. It could be a far different case if we were innocent! One thing missing here is that the creditors gave the club time to pay, and the agreed debts will be paid. The club, whatever the league try to say, traded legally and never went into administration. The lawyers have dissected the league's rules and have come to the conclusion that the league is wrong. I would be happy to come out of this with no points deduction, irrespective of the right or wrong and how we are viewed by other clubs, but it is just not going to happen on this basis. As soon as SLH went onto administration, that protective umbrella extended around the club. Our assets could not just be sold off or broken up because we were under the protection afforded us by administration. As such there is no doubt that we have benefited significantly from this action and will have to suffer the FL's penalty for such action. There is absolutely nothing that stops the FL from taking such action and we can go through their procedures for redress. If this were a case of company law or a civil matter you could be very confident upon the lawyers getting it correct, but I would not extend that to the rules governing sporting bodies, where the intention is to provide a level and fair playing field for all teams. I am getting increasingly concerned regarding the whole bid with Keegan's (non managerial) involvement, Crouch etc. Just why would someone so rich be ****ing about in such a manner? Added to that the regard to the 10 point deduction appears very amateurish or desperate for what ever reason. I would settle now for just having all the debts written off and the club in existence, I just hope we are afforded that opportunity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 i'm well p***ed off i've had a warm laptop on my lap allday my willy has now got heat stroke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 people need to remember we are different from other clubs who have lost points. SLH was set up before these rules SLH have had other companies SLH went bust not the club. The rules state if its a holding company, as long as club continues to trade there will be no penalty. other holding companies have gone bust with clubs not receiving penalty - as their holding company had other active busineses as well It would not open flood gates if they changed the penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxi_sopez Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 i'm well p***ed off i've had a warm laptop on my lap allday my willy has now got heat stroke thats really bad for you, you probably have testicular cancer....sh!t day for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbul Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Only with us, eh? Poopey will reveal that their new owners are arms dealers and torturers but the FA will find some polite way round rocking their Prem boat, because a number of their little gang of owners don't stand up to close scrutiny, while we will be shafted out of existence over some technicality and a tawdry t*sspot Tory tw*t like Mawhinney taking a stand on principle for the first time in his tawdry t*sspot Tory tw*ttish life Don't hold back on our account mate.... I feel your pain!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 i'm well p***ed off i've had a warm laptop on my lap allday my willy has now got heat stroke dont be a fool, cover your tool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicestersaint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Only with us, eh? Poopey will reveal that their new owners are arms dealers and torturers but the FA will find some polite way round rocking their Prem boat, because a number of their little gang of owners don't stand up to close scrutiny, while we will be shafted out of existence over some technicality and a tawdry t*sspot Tory tw*t like Mawhinney taking a stand on principle for the first time in his tawdry t*sspot Tory tw*ttish life Well said that man - and Mawhinney was a fairly hopeless MP as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Lightjaw Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 If SLH is wound up and SFC isn't they aren't inextricably linked. Not even Inspector Clouseau would have trouble with this one. Until we meet again and the case is sol-ved ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 A less dramatised report from Sky here: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11719_5389552,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I would be happy to come out of this with no points deduction, irrespective of the right or wrong and how we are viewed by other clubs, but it is just not going to happen on this basis. As soon as SLH went onto administration, that protective umbrella extended around the club. Our assets could not just be sold off or broken up because we were under the protection afforded us by administration. As such there is no doubt that we have benefited significantly from this action and will have to suffer the FL's penalty for such action. There is absolutely nothing that stops the FL from taking such action and we can go through their procedures for redress. If this were a case of company law or a civil matter you could be very confident upon the lawyers getting it correct, but I would not extend that to the rules governing sporting bodies, where the intention is to provide a level and fair playing field for all teams. I am getting increasingly concerned regarding the whole bid with Keegan's (non managerial) involvement, Crouch etc. Just why would someone so rich be ****ing about in such a manner? Added to that the regard to the 10 point deduction appears very amateurish or desperate for what ever reason. I would settle now for just having all the debts written off and the club in existence, I just hope we are afforded that opportunity! I often agree with you but this time I think the Pinnacle lot should stand firm. SLH and SFC have acted within the FL rules so should IMO not be penalized with the points deduction. The new company that owns SFC will be punished for the mismanagment of SLH. Sure the FL rules leave things wide open for clubs to exploit it but if you make a rule you cant complain if clubs benifit from acting within them. So if Pinnacle give in to the FL then it will just leave things wide open for the FL to change things when ever they see fit. I think they should fight it and should they win it will set a standard that the FL will have to keep. The worry is that by standing firm SFC folds but IMO MLT and Pinnacle have gone far enough to not pull out and may turn there attentions to another local club much further down the pecking order. A quick change of name and a bit of money and they would soon be moving up the leagues and ready for a change of ground to SMS. F**k the Football League and there -10 points. A new Southampton FC will be born and the FL will look like a bunch of knuts and will have got nothing out of there ridiculas rules. If F1 can go up against there governing body and flip them the bird then I dont see why we cant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 A less dramatised report from Sky here: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11719_5389552,00.html who is Lee Tissier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Football is becoming a real joke these days ! 18m for Roque Santa Cruz has been sealed today but 15m for SFC cannot be ! It really doesn't seem fair does it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts