Takeover Latest Gossip

[SaintBobby]

Indeed, there is 'something more' to it than just the points deduction; and the key is here:

 

 

 

This is not only about the deduction, but actual membership of the Football league. And as Mark Fry is indicating, no bidder, Pinnacle or otherwise, is going to want to complete a purchase of the Club if the Football League are failing to guarantee the Club will have a place in the League for the coming season.

 

It appears (from studying the various information we've seen over the last few days), that the FL has engaged in a little "repositioning of the goalposts". All was on course, deal agreed, finances in place, new Board of Directors approved. But, it would seem that when the FL read our Legal Documentation regarding the structure of our deal and the way it is formulated, that SFC Ltd would have a very good legal case against the points deduction.

 

The following FL Regulations (governing the appeals process) are noteworthy:

 

 

 

 

 

So unless The Administrator of SLH had already lodged this appeal and payed the corresponding sum, at the time when he was first speaking about it (and very well, I might add) in the media, then the usual SSAP (Sporting Sanctions Appeal Panel) process is no longer available to us. Time has long since expired.

 

Leaving only a costly legal challenge as a future option.

 

Lord Mawhiney (sp intentional) must've been feeling pretty pleased with himself. He holds grudges; and he's just settled a long standing one (against his old adversary, Rupert Lowe).

 

But, what if, your Organization had already previously responded to an inquiry from SFC/SLH (before going into Administration), stating explicitly that it had to be the "Football Club" and not the "Holding Company" going into Administration, in order for points to be deducted?

 

What if, you then called an "Emergency Meeting" to justify a u-turn in your position (against your own rules and regulations) to 'find' that the Holding Company and the Club are "inextricably linked"?

 

Ahh, well then, you could just brush it all under the carpet and pat yourselves on the back.

 

But then, what if the way our bid's documentation is structured and formulated, exposes the weakness of the Football League's position (and the illegality of their actions), and that by signing it, they are leaving themselves open to being torn apart in court by a legal challenge?

 

Well, then you could try to throw in a clause which states that for SFC's membership to be accepted, you must sign a statement waiving your right to a Legal Appeal. In other words, if you don't agree not to take us to court and expose our incompetence, then we won't sign off your takeover, and you won't have a League Football Club anyway.

 

Scare tactics. (Otherwise known as blackmail).

 

The FL knows that is has f*cked up royally, and is franticly scampering around (again), calling emergency meetings, and trying to cover it's tracks. They will do everything they can, to force their decision and it's consequences (points deduction) down our throats. Including threatening to scupper our takeover and effectively finish our Club off.

 

That's some thin ice you're treading on there, Mr. Mawhiney. I'd tread very carefully, if I were you.

 

Personally, if I were Pinnacle / Mark Fry, I'd be inclined to hold my nerve and call their bluff. The Legal implications for the FL (in light of their previous actions and what they're now trying to do) could be enormous.

 

This is all in my personal opinion of course.

 

Really good analysis. Nail on the head.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Indeed, there is 'something more' to it than just the points deduction; and the key is here:

 

 

 

This is not only about the deduction, but actual membership of the Football league. And as Mark Fry is indicating, no bidder, Pinnacle or otherwise, is going to want to complete a purchase of the Club if the Football League are failing to guarantee the Club will have a place in the League for the coming season.

 

It appears (from studying the various information we've seen over the last few days), that the FL has engaged in a little "repositioning of the goalposts". All was on course, deal agreed, finances in place, new Board of Directors approved. But, it would seem that when the FL read our Legal Documentation regarding the structure of our deal and the way it is formulated, that SFC Ltd would have a very good legal case against the points deduction.

 

The following FL Regulations (governing the appeals process) are noteworthy:

 

 

 

 

 

So unless The Administrator of SLH had already lodged this appeal and payed the corresponding sum, at the time when he was first speaking about it (and very well, I might add) in the media, then the usual SSAP (Sporting Sanctions Appeal Panel) process is no longer available to us. Time has long since expired.

 

Leaving only a costly legal challenge as a future option.

 

Lord Mawhiney (sp intentional) must've been feeling pretty pleased with himself. He holds grudges; and he's just settled a long standing one (against his old adversary, Rupert Lowe).

 

But, what if, your Organization had already previously responded to an inquiry from SFC/SLH (before going into Administration), stating explicitly that it had to be the "Football Club" and not the "Holding Company" going into Administration, in order for points to be deducted?

 

What if, you then called an "Emergency Meeting" to justify a u-turn in your position (against your own rules and regulations) to 'find' that the Holding Company and the Club are "inextricably linked"?

 

Ahh, well then, you could just brush it all under the carpet and pat yourselves on the back.

 

But then, what if the way our bid's documentation is structured and formulated, exposes the weakness of the Football League's position (and the illegality of their actions), and that by signing it, they are leaving themselves open to being torn apart in court by a legal challenge?

 

Well, then you could try to throw in a clause which states that for SFC's membership to be accepted, you must sign a statement waiving your right to a Legal Appeal. In other words, if you don't agree not to take us to court and expose our incompetence, then we won't sign off your takeover, and you won't have a League Football Club anyway.

 

Scare tactics. (Otherwise known as blackmail).

 

The FL knows that is has f*cked up royally, and is franticly scampering around (again), calling emergency meetings, and trying to cover it's tracks. They will do everything they can, to force their decision and it's consequences (points deduction) down our throats. Including threatening to scupper our takeover and effectively finish our Club off.

 

That's some thin ice you're treading on there, Mr. Mawhiney. I'd tread very carefully, if I were you.

 

Personally, if I were Pinnacle / Mark Fry, I'd be inclined to hold my nerve and call their bluff. The Legal implications for the FL (in light of their previous actions and what they're now trying to do) could be enormous.

 

This is all in my personal opinion of course.

 

Good reading which beggars this question (and then some others!). If Pinnacle are supremely confident of winning an appeal would they have the financial cojones to call the FL's bluff, take it to court and possibly win the day, all for a club they do not, as yet, own?

 

I'd like to think they would but can't really see it happening.

 

In the meantime the start of the season looms inexorably nearer and this club needs funding, it needs to sell match and season tickets, to what though? A league of which we are no longer members?

 

The whole thing seems designed, by the FL, to force us into liquidation.

 

Which leads to this 'Golden Share', (Jason did far better in his search for the Golden Fleece, fleece springs to mind in our current dealings with the FL, but I digress) for the FL to be talking of us 'not getting it back' implies that they have taken it from us in the first instance. That being the case, when was it taken? If before the season end (presumably at the time of the points deduction) were they allowing us to unknowingly fulfil, illegally, our fixtures?

 

I don't need to tell you my fellow fans that this situation 'effing well stinks'!

 

I think that now, if it can be done, Pinnacle should take the deduction so we can get up and running. Then let's get some top drawer legal bods on the case and see if we can really 'stick some cold steel' right into the gizzards of this shambolic FL.

 

For what it's worth this FL have achieved one thing.

 

The fan base is now more united in it's aims and voice than it has been for many a year!

 

F U C K you & your colleagues Mr Mawhinney with your blinkered, bullying attitudes!

[NickG]

Indeed, there is 'something more' to it than just the points deduction; and the key is here:

 

 

 

This is not only about the deduction, but actual membership of the Football league. And as Mark Fry is indicating, no bidder, Pinnacle or otherwise, is going to want to complete a purchase of the Club if the Football League are failing to guarantee the Club will have a place in the League for the coming season.

 

It appears (from studying the various information we've seen over the last few days), that the FL has engaged in a little "repositioning of the goalposts". All was on course, deal agreed, finances in place, new Board of Directors approved. But, it would seem that when the FL read our Legal Documentation regarding the structure of our deal and the way it is formulated, that SFC Ltd would have a very good legal case against the points deduction.

 

The following FL Regulations (governing the appeals process) are noteworthy:

 

 

 

 

 

So unless The Administrator of SLH had already lodged this appeal and payed the corresponding sum, at the time when he was first speaking about it (and very well, I might add) in the media, then the usual SSAP (Sporting Sanctions Appeal Panel) process is no longer available to us. Time has long since expired.

 

Leaving only a costly legal challenge as a future option.

 

Lord Mawhiney (sp intentional) must've been feeling pretty pleased with himself. He holds grudges; and he's just settled a long standing one (against his old adversary, Rupert Lowe).

 

But, what if, your Organization had already previously responded to an inquiry from SFC/SLH (before going into Administration), stating explicitly that it had to be the "Football Club" and not the "Holding Company" going into Administration, in order for points to be deducted?

 

What if, you then called an "Emergency Meeting" to justify a u-turn in your position (against your own rules and regulations) to 'find' that the Holding Company and the Club are "inextricably linked"?

 

Ahh, well then, you could just brush it all under the carpet and pat yourselves on the back.

 

But then, what if the way our bid's documentation is structured and formulated, exposes the weakness of the Football League's position (and the illegality of their actions), and that by signing it, they are leaving themselves open to being torn apart in court by a legal challenge?

 

Well, then you could try to throw in a clause which states that for SFC's membership to be accepted, you must sign a statement waiving your right to a Legal Appeal. In other words, if you don't agree not to take us to court and expose our incompetence, then we won't sign off your takeover, and you won't have a League Football Club anyway.

 

Scare tactics. (Otherwise known as blackmail).

 

The FL knows that is has f*cked up royally, and is franticly scampering around (again), calling emergency meetings, and trying to cover it's tracks. They will do everything they can, to force their decision and it's consequences (points deduction) down our throats. Including threatening to scupper our takeover and effectively finish our Club off.

 

That's some thin ice you're treading on there, Mr. Mawhiney. I'd tread very carefully, if I were you.

 

Personally, if I were Pinnacle / Mark Fry, I'd be inclined to hold my nerve and call their bluff. The Legal implications for the FL (in light of their previous actions and what they're now trying to do) could be enormous.

 

This is all in my personal opinion of course.

 

 

this is what I have tried to say but you have put much better! I am quite relaxed about this as feel the FL have been shown that the club was never in admin!

[Dr Octopus]

MLT on SSN at 7 am saying there were a few issues that came up in the last 48 hours causing the delay, Also they are doing everything they can to resolve them, Possibly today! Sounds promising.

[Panda]

The FL have never disputed the club are not in admin, only SLH were, but they tied the two together to appease the other FL members and to prevent appeals from those already penalised in the past.

 

They are now demanding that clubs that come out of admin must have a voluntary arrangement with creditors for repayments of debt. SFC cannot do this as it has no creditors, it is not in liquidation. SLH cannot do this as its assets are being sold off and the company liquidated.

 

Therefore:

 

1. The FL say no CVA or its minus 25! Accept or get lost. Pinnacle say there cannot be a CVA as the club has no creditors to come to an arrangement with

 

or

 

2. The FL say no CVA? Oh yes, see your point, let's stick with the -10 then. But this breaks their own rules regarding CVA's and presents complications for the past and future.

 

or

 

3. FL say no CVA, I see your point. True SFC were never in administration so can't enter in to one! Sh1t! That means if your were never in admin we can't doc you any points at all can we? Oh dear, that makes us look very foolish but never mind.

 

or

 

4. FL say, you are cheating and we don't like it. You are trying to exploit a legal loophole to get by the spirit of the legislation we put in place to prevent this form of manipulation. If you want to play in our league then you have to play fairly. Stop splitting hairs and sign here. Buyers lawyers say, you can't sign with that clause in it, its illegal.

 

So there you have it. The future of Southampton FC versus the future, as we know it, of the Football League. The FL cannot back down, the purchase (by anyone) of SFC cannot go ahead.

 

All that is left now is to wait while the all powerful FL decide on what course of action they will accept as a compromise whereby they do not lose face and Saints get to continue. However, the FL will win - they have to.

[InvictaSaint]

Indeed, there is 'something more' to it than just the points deduction; and the key is here:

 

 

 

This is not only about the deduction, but actual membership of the Football league. And as Mark Fry is indicating, no bidder, Pinnacle or otherwise, is going to want to complete a purchase of the Club if the Football League are failing to guarantee the Club will have a place in the League for the coming season.

 

It appears (from studying the various information we've seen over the last few days), that the FL has engaged in a little "repositioning of the goalposts". All was on course, deal agreed, finances in place, new Board of Directors approved. But, it would seem that when the FL read our Legal Documentation regarding the structure of our deal and the way it is formulated, that SFC Ltd would have a very good legal case against the points deduction.

 

The following FL Regulations (governing the appeals process) are noteworthy:

 

 

 

 

 

So unless The Administrator of SLH had already lodged this appeal and payed the corresponding sum, at the time when he was first speaking about it (and very well, I might add) in the media, then the usual SSAP (Sporting Sanctions Appeal Panel) process is no longer available to us. Time has long since expired.

 

Leaving only a costly legal challenge as a future option.

 

Lord Mawhiney (sp intentional) must've been feeling pretty pleased with himself. He holds grudges; and he's just settled a long standing one (against his old adversary, Rupert Lowe).

 

But, what if, your Organization had already previously responded to an inquiry from SFC/SLH (before going into Administration), stating explicitly that it had to be the "Football Club" and not the "Holding Company" going into Administration, in order for points to be deducted?

 

What if, you then called an "Emergency Meeting" to justify a u-turn in your position (against your own rules and regulations) to 'find' that the Holding Company and the Club are "inextricably linked"?

 

Ahh, well then, you could just brush it all under the carpet and pat yourselves on the back.

 

But then, what if the way our bid's documentation is structured and formulated, exposes the weakness of the Football League's position (and the illegality of their actions), and that by signing it, they are leaving themselves open to being torn apart in court by a legal challenge?

 

Well, then you could try to throw in a clause which states that for SFC's membership to be accepted, you must sign a statement waiving your right to a Legal Appeal. In other words, if you don't agree not to take us to court and expose our incompetence, then we won't sign off your takeover, and you won't have a League Football Club anyway.

 

Scare tactics. (Otherwise known as blackmail).

 

The FL knows that is has f*cked up royally, and is franticly scampering around (again), calling emergency meetings, and trying to cover it's tracks. They will do everything they can, to force their decision and it's consequences (points deduction) down our throats. Including threatening to scupper our takeover and effectively finish our Club off.

 

That's some thin ice you're treading on there, Mr. Mawhiney. I'd tread very carefully, if I were you.

 

Personally, if I were Pinnacle / Mark Fry, I'd be inclined to hold my nerve and call their bluff. The Legal implications for the FL (in light of their previous actions and what they're now trying to do) could be enormous.

 

This is all in my personal opinion of course.

 

Reading Halo's post in conjunction with Dubai Phil's "catch 22" post on another thread leads me to conclude that some very clever legal people on Pinnacle's side have thought this through long and hard and have realised that they can push this as far as is possible before forcing the deal through. IMO this is not a last minute hitch on Pinnacle's part, but rather a last minute realisation on the FL's part that they are on very dodgy ground legally speaking and may have to find a compromise to save themselves. We shall see. MLT's comments on SSN at 7.20 today were encouraging though....

[70's Mike]

The FL have never disputed the club are not in admin, only SLH were, but they tied the two together to appease the other FL members and to prevent appeals from those already penalised in the past.

 

They are now demanding that clubs that come out of admin must have a voluntary arrangement with creditors for repayments of debt. SFC cannot do this as it has no creditors, it is not in liquidation. SLH cannot do this as its assets are being sold off and the company liquidated.

 

Therefore:

 

1. The FL say no CVA or its minus 25! Accept or get lost. Pinnacle say there cannot be a CVA as the club has no creditors to come to an arrangement with

 

or

 

2. The FL say no CVA? Oh yes, see your point, let's stick with the -10 then. But this breaks their own rules regarding CVA's and presents complications for the past and future.

 

or

 

3. FL say no CVA, I see your point. True SFC were never in administration so can't enter in to one! Sh1t! That means if your were never in admin we can't doc you any points at all can we? Oh dear, that makes us look very foolish but never mind.

 

or

 

4. FL say, you are cheating and we don't like it. You are trying to exploit a legal loophole to get by the spirit of the legislation we put in place to prevent this form of manipulation. If you want to play in our league then you have to play fairly. Stop splitting hairs and sign here. Buyers lawyers say, you can't sign with that clause in it, its illegal.

 

So there you have it. The future of Southampton FC versus the future, as we know it, of the Football League. The FL cannot back down, the purchase (by anyone) of SFC cannot go ahead.

 

All that is left now is to wait while the all powerful FL decide on what course of action they will accept as a compromise whereby they do not lose face and Saints get to continue. However, the FL will win - they have to.

 

i would go with number 4

[dubai_phil]

Reading Halo's post in conjunction with Dubai Phil's "catch 22" post on another thread leads me to conclude that some very clever legal people on Pinnacle's side have thought this through long and hard and have realised that they can push this as far as is possible before forcing the deal through. IMO this is not a last minute hitch on Pinnacle's part, but rather a last minute realisation on the FL's part that they are on very dodgy ground legally speaking and may have to find a compromise to save themselves. We shall see. MLT's comments on SSN at 7.20 today were encouraging though....

 

Again, was thinking about this - there COULD be a solution....

 

There was a delay putting SLH into admin. Now, IF it could be shown why that happened and that admin was "technically" started earlier, then a useful compromise would be a 10 point penalty for 2008/09 season...

 

As for the legal side, I tried to point out from day one that a lot of Wise people had actually been involved, and obviously that was the old legal counsel for the SLH as well as BT's counsel and others (that sort of got muddled up a bit, because of the Barry the Briefcase concepts)

 

Pretty much from Day one I think history will show that a lot of legal expertise has been used by a lot of people. The FL in all likelihood only woke up to that fact late last week and to coin a phrase have been somewhat caught with their pants in the expenses jar.

 

I'm gonna spend the day packing for my trip to Blighty tomorrow and watching egg chasers later, it will be too stressful on here all weekend.

[Badger]

i would go with number 4

 

ditto.

[Stud mark of doom]

Indeed, there is 'something more' to it than just the points deduction; and the key is here:

 

 

 

This is not only about the deduction, but actual membership of the Football league. And as Mark Fry is indicating, no bidder, Pinnacle or otherwise, is going to want to complete a purchase of the Club if the Football League are failing to guarantee the Club will have a place in the League for the coming season.

 

It appears (from studying the various information we've seen over the last few days), that the FL has engaged in a little "repositioning of the goalposts". All was on course, deal agreed, finances in place, new Board of Directors approved. But, it would seem that when the FL read our Legal Documentation regarding the structure of our deal and the way it is formulated, that SFC Ltd would have a very good legal case against the points deduction.

 

The following FL Regulations (governing the appeals process) are noteworthy:

 

 

 

 

 

So unless The Administrator of SLH had already lodged this appeal and payed the corresponding sum, at the time when he was first speaking about it (and very well, I might add) in the media, then the usual SSAP (Sporting Sanctions Appeal Panel) process is no longer available to us. Time has long since expired.

 

Leaving only a costly legal challenge as a future option.

 

Lord Mawhiney (sp intentional) must've been feeling pretty pleased with himself. He holds grudges; and he's just settled a long standing one (against his old adversary, Rupert Lowe).

 

But, what if, your Organization had already previously responded to an inquiry from SFC/SLH (before going into Administration), stating explicitly that it had to be the "Football Club" and not the "Holding Company" going into Administration, in order for points to be deducted?

 

What if, you then called an "Emergency Meeting" to justify a u-turn in your position (against your own rules and regulations) to 'find' that the Holding Company and the Club are "inextricably linked"?

 

Ahh, well then, you could just brush it all under the carpet and pat yourselves on the back.

 

But then, what if the way our bid's documentation is structured and formulated, exposes the weakness of the Football League's position (and the illegality of their actions), and that by signing it, they are leaving themselves open to being torn apart in court by a legal challenge?

 

Well, then you could try to throw in a clause which states that for SFC's membership to be accepted, you must sign a statement waiving your right to a Legal Appeal. In other words, if you don't agree not to take us to court and expose our incompetence, then we won't sign off your takeover, and you won't have a League Football Club anyway.

 

Scare tactics. (Otherwise known as blackmail).

 

The FL knows that is has f*cked up royally, and is franticly scampering around (again), calling emergency meetings, and trying to cover it's tracks. They will do everything they can, to force their decision and it's consequences (points deduction) down our throats. Including threatening to scupper our takeover and effectively finish our Club off.

 

That's some thin ice you're treading on there, Mr. Mawhiney. I'd tread very carefully, if I were you.

 

Personally, if I were Pinnacle / Mark Fry, I'd be inclined to hold my nerve and call their bluff. The Legal implications for the FL (in light of their previous actions and what they're now trying to do) could be enormous.

 

This is all in my personal opinion of course.

Re being too late to lodge an appeal on the 10 pts.

 

I'm sure I remember Mark Fry saying something like 'we have done everything necessary for a future owner to take forward an appeal'. So they would have notified an intention to appeal within the 7 day limit. It would have been on the old website though.

[SFC Forever]

Correct me if i am wrong, and it wouldn't be the first or last time, but TL has contact with this site.

In which case he will see that the FL have succeeded in joining all saints supporters together in a way nobody has been able to do for a very long time. Everybody seems to be saying very similar things. We are all now firmly ante FL(Lord W) and behind the club. The whole sorry saga is about to hit the fan and someone(Lord W) is going to get far more than he reckoned on at the beginning of this story.

Even though we are still in a mess I am feeling more confidant this morning. I feel certain that Pinnacle have the knowhow required to sort this out and in so doing push the FL into changing their rules.

[trousers]

[sidthesquid]

I just have a nasty feeling that Panda is right and they may have all got themselves in a mess and discovered at the last minute that the FL have backed themselves into a position where technically they have to give us a 25 point deduction or even refuse us joining the league, according to their own byzantine and now contradictory rules, or back down and face trouble elsewhere. And Pinnacle are not exactly happy about it.

[Burger]

The FL have never disputed the club are not in admin, only SLH were, but they tied the two together to appease the other FL members and to prevent appeals from those already penalised in the past.

 

They are now demanding that clubs that come out of admin must have a voluntary arrangement with creditors for repayments of debt. SFC cannot do this as it has no creditors, it is not in liquidation. SLH cannot do this as its assets are being sold off and the company liquidated.

 

Therefore:

 

1. The FL say no CVA or its minus 25! Accept or get lost. Pinnacle say there cannot be a CVA as the club has no creditors to come to an arrangement with

 

or

 

2. The FL say no CVA? Oh yes, see your point, let's stick with the -10 then. But this breaks their own rules regarding CVA's and presents complications for the past and future.

 

or

 

3. FL say no CVA, I see your point. True SFC were never in administration so can't enter in to one! Sh1t! That means if your were never in admin we can't doc you any points at all can we? Oh dear, that makes us look very foolish but never mind.

 

or

 

4. FL say, you are cheating and we don't like it. You are trying to exploit a legal loophole to get by the spirit of the legislation we put in place to prevent this form of manipulation. If you want to play in our league then you have to play fairly. Stop splitting hairs and sign here. Buyers lawyers say, you can't sign with that clause in it, its illegal.

 

So there you have it. The future of Southampton FC versus the future, as we know it, of the Football League. The FL cannot back down, the purchase (by anyone) of SFC cannot go ahead.

 

All that is left now is to wait while the all powerful FL decide on what course of action they will accept as a compromise whereby they do not lose face and Saints get to continue. However, the FL will win - they have to.

 

I think you've summed up the situation quite well. I would make one change:

 

The FL say no CVA or its minus 25! The FL say no CVA? Oh yes, see your point, so it is minus 25.

[um pahars]

The FL have never disputed the club are not in admin, only SLH were, but they tied the two together to appease the other FL members and to prevent appeals from those already penalised in the past.

 

They are now demanding that clubs that come out of admin must have a voluntary arrangement with creditors for repayments of debt. SFC cannot do this as it has no creditors, it is not in liquidation. SLH cannot do this as its assets are being sold off and the company liquidated.

 

Therefore:

 

1. The FL say no CVA or its minus 25! Accept or get lost. Pinnacle say there cannot be a CVA as the club has no creditors to come to an arrangement with

 

or

 

2. The FL say no CVA? Oh yes, see your point, let's stick with the -10 then. But this breaks their own rules regarding CVA's and presents complications for the past and future.

 

or

 

3. FL say no CVA, I see your point. True SFC were never in administration so can't enter in to one! Sh1t! That means if your were never in admin we can't doc you any points at all can we? Oh dear, that makes us look very foolish but never mind.

 

or

 

4. FL say, you are cheating and we don't like it. You are trying to exploit a legal loophole to get by the spirit of the legislation we put in place to prevent this form of manipulation. If you want to play in our league then you have to play fairly. Stop splitting hairs and sign here. Buyers lawyers say, you can't sign with that clause in it, its illegal.

 

So there you have it. The future of Southampton FC versus the future, as we know it, of the Football League. The FL cannot back down, the purchase (by anyone) of SFC cannot go ahead.

 

All that is left now is to wait while the all powerful FL decide on what course of action they will accept as a compromise whereby they do not lose face and Saints get to continue. However, the FL will win - they have to.

 

Roughly where I am, in that the FL hold all the aces.

 

Two points though.

 

Firstly, won't SFC PLC still need a CVA even if they are being liquidated????

 

And secondly, and perhaps more important, if you look at the Leeds ruling then the arbitration panel did not deem Leeds having to sign away their future rights of redress and appeal as being illegal/under duress/unenforceable.

They clearly stated that it was a commercial bargain taken by Leeds after being given a number of alternatives, no matter how unpalateable some were (cease membership of the League, start in Div 4, start in Div 3 with -15) and therefore therefore the compromise agreement was deemed to exist and the Arbitration Panel found for the League immediately.

[Popester]

I agree - I think this whole issue is over the potential loss of 25 points not 10 . Pinnacle will not take over the club if we are -25 . So they are not trying to get the 10 points back but 15 .

[um pahars]

I agree - I think this whole issue is over the potential loss of 25 points not 10 . Pinnacle will not take over the club if we are -25 . So they are not trying to get the 10 points back but 15 .

 

You could well be right and additionally it could even be with regards what division we are playing in as in the Leeds case right up until 3rd August the League looked as though they were even considering letting them start again in Div 4.

 

Pinnacle and anyone else will want to have the League's position confirmed and signed off before they pay over the money.

 

Some of the starting points with regards a comparison with Leeds are different, but the way it has panned out has many, many similarities.

[Shroppie]

I agree - I think this whole issue is over the potential loss of 25 points not 10 . Pinnacle will not take over the club if we are -25 . So they are not trying to get the 10 points back but 15 .

 

I'm with that view too.

 

Just as FL said SLH and SFC are effectively the same thing so could take 10 points for SLH going into admin, they will argue that SLH have not come out of admin with CVA so the same applies - hence -25. Even though SFC have paid all creditors.

 

It stinks more and more.

 

And I don't believe for a moment that the emergency meeting is for the FL to try to extricate themselves from the mess or agree a compromise. It will be to step up the pressure and blackmail, reassert their position and work out how many more deductions they can make.

 

Saints are (were?) a big club, and if FL can put them down they are sending out a clear message "pour encourager les autres". There will be more clubs in admin, and they have to be kept in their place.

Edited 20 June, 2009 by Shroppie

[Popester]

Agreed - They would be confident of catching up 10 points to stay in league one but 25 is a step too far.

[dronskisaint]

This seems an informed analysis relating to the relevant rules.

 

Could I ask if there is a rule or machinery in place to suspend the imposition of the ten points pending an appeal or would that then incur the additional penalty should the courts (as opposed to the FLs' own internal kangaroo court) find against the club?

 

Were the points deduction to be suspended then it would hopefully give Pinnacle the confidence in their own case to proceed & allow the FL the back door exit of backing down in the face of the illegalty of their own rules.

[dronskisaint]

Sorry - these two posts should have been linked!

 

This seems an informed analysis relating to the relevant rules.

 

Could I ask if there is a rule or machinery in place to suspend the imposition of the ten points pending an appeal or would that then incur the additional penalty should the courts (as opposed to the FLs' own internal kangaroo court) find against the club?

 

Were the points deduction to be suspended then it would hopefully give Pinnacle the confidence in their own case to proceed & allow the FL the back door exit of backing down in the face of the illegalty of their own rules.

 

The FL have never disputed the club are not in admin, only SLH were, but they tied the two together to appease the other FL members and to prevent appeals from those already penalised in the past.

 

They are now demanding that clubs that come out of admin must have a voluntary arrangement with creditors for repayments of debt. SFC cannot do this as it has no creditors, it is not in liquidation. SLH cannot do this as its assets are being sold off and the company liquidated.

 

Therefore:

 

1. The FL say no CVA or its minus 25! Accept or get lost. Pinnacle say there cannot be a CVA as the club has no creditors to come to an arrangement with

 

or

 

2. The FL say no CVA? Oh yes, see your point, let's stick with the -10 then. But this breaks their own rules regarding CVA's and presents complications for the past and future.

 

or

 

3. FL say no CVA, I see your point. True SFC were never in administration so can't enter in to one! Sh1t! That means if your were never in admin we can't doc you any points at all can we? Oh dear, that makes us look very foolish but never mind.

 

or

 

4. FL say, you are cheating and we don't like it. You are trying to exploit a legal loophole to get by the spirit of the legislation we put in place to prevent this form of manipulation. If you want to play in our league then you have to play fairly. Stop splitting hairs and sign here. Buyers lawyers say, you can't sign with that clause in it, its illegal.

 

So there you have it. The future of Southampton FC versus the future, as we know it, of the Football League. The FL cannot back down, the purchase (by anyone) of SFC cannot go ahead.

 

All that is left now is to wait while the all powerful FL decide on what course of action they will accept as a compromise whereby they do not lose face and Saints get to continue. However, the FL will win - they have to.

[eharty9]

Ssn just read out my email!!!

[treggs23]

FWIW I'm still feeling positive about the purchase going ahead, Le Tiss on SSN sounded more like it was a minor legal issue than a major thing such as the risk of -25 points that has been mentioned here...my main concern really is that Pinnacle might lose out to someone else which, although I'd be grateful to have been bought out, would leave me with a tinge of disappointment about Le Tiss and Pinnacle as all along they have seemed like the best hope for a great future...worrying times

[saintjay77]

Ssn just read out my email!!!

 

I was too busy shouting BOSH at ever Le'God goal to listen to the emails lol

[Joesaint]

Could they just sign saying they wont appeal so we can concentrate on the squad and manager.

Then after take them to court for blackmail and that to have a chance in the league they had to buy the club when they could (compitition to buy club).

As well as appeal the points appeal against the action of the FL to act in the way it has.

[um pahars]

Could they just sign saying they wont appeal so we can concentrate on the squad and manager.

Then after take them to court for blackmail and that to have a chance in the league they had to buy the club when they could (compitition to buy club).

 

Exactly what Leeds did, and the Arbitration Panel bombed Leeds out.

[eelpie]

I'm with that view too.

 

Just as FL said SLH and SFC are effectively the same thing so could take 10 points for SLH going into admin, they will argue that SLH have not come out of admin with CVA so the same applies - hence -25. Even though SFC have paid all creditors.

 

It stinks more and more.

 

And I don't believe for a moment that the emergency meeting is for the FL to try to extricate themselves from the mess or agree a compromise. It will be to step up the pressure and blackmail, reassert their position and work out how many more deductions they can make.

 

Saints are (were?) a big club, and if FL can put them down they are sending out a clear message "pour encourager les autres". There will be more clubs in admin, and they have to be kept in their place.

 

It seems to me that the administrator has to obtain a court ruling (not rely on his opinion) as to whether the PLC and SFC are the same or not - before the club can be sold. If a court of law rules that they are not separate entities, then we should accept the points punishment without hesitation. If not, then a separate court ruling will be necessary to decide if a members club can overule the law of the land.

 

(What a mess you created for us, Rupert.)

[*Halo*]

The whole thing seems designed, by the FL, to force us into liquidation.

 

If you (from FL perspective) are adamant that you are going to (inappropriately) sanction a Club for the Holding Company's Administration, (after they've driven an Abrams Tank through your loophole) despite explicitly telling them beforehand that you will not, you need a new 'plan' of attack. Like issuing a 'finding' that the Club and Plc are 'one "inextricably linked" entity', and proving this becomes your main focus point.

 

If you then find yourselves after the event 'proved' blatantly 'wrong', and in a compromised position, you would likely be very much hoping that the Club itself did actually go into Administration, thus removing your problem.

 

So, if you were then able to find a way to assist this in occurring, preferably within your own rules, you'd be likely to take this factor into consideration. Or, if you were able to force said Club down such a route that it becomes apparent to them that such an outcome is likely should they fail to agree to your 'conditions' (such as refusing them a license to partake in your league if they do not sign a certain document); you may well feel inclined to take a little stroll down that avenue. (As your ruling stays intact, no loss of face, and Club still gets to exist and be in the League).

 

Which leads to this 'Golden Share', (Jason did far better in his search for the Golden Fleece, fleece springs to mind in our current dealings with the FL, but I digress) for the FL to be talking of us 'not getting it back' implies that they have taken it from us in the first instance. That being the case, when was it taken?

 

The 'Golden Share' is basically the Club's 'right' to play in the Competition (or a glorified 'membership card', if you will). Some seem to misperceive it as the FL holding a 'Golden Share' in the Clubs, rather that the other way around; as in the Clubs given a 'Golden Share' in the Organization (FL), which can be retracted by the FL at any time it deems fit, should any Club be found in breach of it's Regulations.

When a Club goes into Administration, it is served 'notice' by the Football League of impending Sanctions, part of which includes the agreement of a CVA with creditors, in order to exit Administration, and have the notice withdrawn. So technically (although there may have been exceptions) if a Club which has been in Admin, does not have a CVA, the FL will not withdraw it's notice of expulsion from it's membership.

 

SFC does not have CVA, as SFC was, as has been stated all along, never in Administration.

 

The legal documentation in Pinnacle's bid makes this perfectly clear and concise, and that is a big problem for the Football League.

 

There are likely many 'maneuvers' to be considered at the "Emergency Meeting" on Monday, whether or not they turn out in our favour, or whether the FL have the bottle to take on the legal implications that denying the takeover on the grounds they currently stand on, we shall have to wait and see.

 

Though I feel quietly confident that something will be worked out, and it will all go through early next week.

 

 

this is what I have tried to say but you have put much better! I am quite relaxed about this as feel the FL have been shown that the club was never in admin!

 

Indeed Nick. I feel similarly.

I don't post much. I usually much prefer reading what others have to say, unless I feel there is something of value I can contribute. Mostly someone else articulates my own ideas perfectly well, so I need say nothing.

 

Whilst I do not say that my perspective here is necessarily "right", I did feel it worth sharing on this occasion, to hopefully shed light on what may be happening 'behind the scenes' presently.

 

 

Reading Halo's post in conjunction with Dubai Phil's "catch 22" post on another thread leads me to conclude that some very clever legal people on Pinnacle's side have thought this through long and hard and have realised that they can push this as far as is possible before forcing the deal through. IMO this is not a last minute hitch on Pinnacle's part, but rather a last minute realisation on the FL's part that they are on very dodgy ground legally speaking and may have to find a compromise to save themselves.

 

That would tend to be how I see things currently too. I could be wrong of course.

 

 

Re being too late to lodge an appeal on the 10 pts.

 

I'm sure I remember Mark Fry saying something like 'we have done everything necessary for a future owner to take forward an appeal'. So they would have notified an intention to appeal within the 7 day limit. It would have been on the old website though.

 

I hear what you're saying, and indeed, Mr. Fry did say as much. But, FL Regulation 12.3.10 states:

 

The League shall, immediately upon receipt of the Appeal, instruct a firm of independent accountants to carry out a review of the Club’s activities for the purposes of preparing an independent report into the circumstances surrounding and leading up to the entering into insolvency proceedings. The Club shall meet the costs of preparation of that report in any event. The report shall be provided to the Club, the SSAP and The League. The SSAP shall take into account the contents of that report when determining whether the insolvency proceedings arose solely as a result of a Force Majeure event.

 

It could well be argued that this has already occurred when the FL sent in their 'forensic experts' to examine and investigate us, and if so, this has to be taken as the point at which time the appeal was 'lodged'.

 

In which case:

 

Both the Club and The League shall be entitled to make representations to the SSAP. The SSAP shall hear any appeal within 21 days of the lodgement of the Appeal.

 

In which case, again, if our time has passed, and that 'appeal' is over; then, all we would have left are the legal steps which the FL are so keen to enforce us to avoid.

 

 

Also noteworthy, pertaining to our alleged 'uncooperative' stance when under investigation (something I always felt to be 'engineered' by the FL) is Regulation 71.4:

 

 

Any failure by any Club, Agent, Player or Official to co-operate with an investigation by the League under this Regulation shall be treated as a separate breach of these Regulations and shall be dealt with accordingly.

 

So I'd imagine it safe to speculate that in the eyes of the FL, that level of our appeals process would be deemed well and truly over.

 

 

Anyway, that is all I have time for at the moment. I shall begin my retreat back to lurking in the shadows.

 

I hope I've been able to at least offer another perspective of what may or may not be occurring 'behind the scenes' right now. A 'power play', in many aspects, where the stakes are extremely high, and no side can afford to lose.

 

I envision a compromise of some kind, that all can emerge from without losing any further 'face'.

 

Needless to say, I fervently hope that I am correct.

[OldNick]

.

 

(What a mess you created for us, Rupert.)

or conversely it could be the best thing he did for us.If that has saved us the deduction it could be seen as a plus.

He is fading fast in my memory the sooner he and all the last 20 years of negligence is gone from our minds and club the better

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Thanks for your input Halo - you have kickstarted the old grey matter within me but my fingers remained crossed.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Halo, thanks for 'articulating' my feelings far better than I could have achieved!

 

The whole (in)action by the FL does seem to be a rearguard one or, as I would call it, covering their arses!

[RedArmy]

If we somehow beat the FL and start the season on 0. With a good manager and a bit of cash to spend, we must surely be favourites for promotion?

 

Come on Pinnacle, stick it to 'em.

[OldNick]

If we somehow beat the FL and start the season on 0. With a good manager and a bit of cash to spend, we must surely be favourites for promotion?

 

Come on Pinnacle, stick it to 'em.

Please dont start the pressure by saying such things. Leeds are far more equipped to do so. Add Norwich Charlton and Millwall and you have a tough league, let alone many of other clubs.

Charlton for me are better placed than us as they finished the season on a good run of form and are settled

[Saint 76er]

Perhaps we're all worrying over nothing.

 

Didn't a couple of minor legal issues arise that couldn't be sorted by the deadline and didn't MF refuse (quite rightly) an extension as they were matters Pinnacle should have had control over?

 

However, why then not demand the FL hand back our points, knowing that they won't, but hey that's now a problem beyond Pinnacle's control, right?

 

Better still the FL agree to meet Monday arvo to discuss, so Pinnacle can't reasonably be expected to settle until, say, next Tuesday, right?

 

But, hey, isn't that the exact day Pinnacle had asked MF to extend to, but he wasn't able to accommodate them with that wish? Funny coincidence that.

 

So, there needed to be a reason for any extension to be beyond Pinnacle's control, and now there is one. If MF is agreeable to go along with this until after the FL meet, and if the minor legal issues are resolved by then, and both TL and MLT appear to be indicating that they will, then Pinnacle could well settle and be holding up a scarf at a press conference early Tuesday or even late Monday if all goes well.

 

Unless the FL capitulate, this scenario would require accepting the -10 points, but surely Pinnacle would have factored that into their bid price anyway and anything else would simply be a bonus....

[Fan The Flames]

This website is brilliant, there is always someone who comes up with the goods.

 

Could the compromise be, as I posted elsewhere, we take the points deduction and its just backdated to last season.

[Evo]

This website is brilliant, there is always someone who comes up with the goods.

 

Could the compromise be, as I posted elsewhere, we take the points deduction and its just backdated to last season.

 

Could be or it could be some form of financial and/or suspended sentance. Who whows with them. Arbitrary seems to be the word :confused:

 

Another random thought I've had is that there may be debts which the FL would class as "football related" that are not given sufficient priority due to the structuring of the Pinnacle deal and would thus have to "wait in queue" with any other creditors as SLH is wound up - may be the FL are unhappy at the predicted dividend to these creditors. Dunno, I've almost had enough of this. TAKEOVERS OUT!

[Saints foreva]

cant see why stockport had their 10 points taken off last season, didn't affect them. ours added on this year. perhaps they dont like the fact that we used to beat the likes of manure, arse, and deaderpool, and worried that when we get back to the loads of money p'ship wud do the same again!! Still manure and co. can be 100's of millions in debt, but they make for good telly, but not on setanta (went bust bcause given crappy monday night games between nonenities).

 

The rules state, if there is still a chance of relegation.. The club will surve the point deduction in the same season.

 

Before Stockport went into admin, they were 13 points away from the relegation zone with a pretty decent GD over the bottom 3.

 

When they went into admin, they were 3 points away but tbh.. It was completely unlikely they would be relegated.

 

I think Northampton/Brighton had to win like 14-0. But because there was still a very small chance they could be relegated.. The rules state they get the point deduction in the same season they go into admin.

 

Our situation was doom and gloom either way, -10 in League One or relegation to League One after managing to stay up in The Championship.

 

Pretty pathetic, but they're the rules.

[up and away]

There will be no compromise from the FL, we have absolutely no influence that we can bring to bear upon them. At the present time we are technically not in the FL and unless we sign up to abide by their rules and appeal process, that will remain the case. There seems to be a major issue that Pinnacle are concerned about, what I can only guess but doubt it to be to the original -10 point deduction. As others have suggested it could well be the agreement for the CVA. Because all the debts were placed upon SLH it could well be the insistence that the CVA has to be agreed for SLH, not just the club.

 

The FL has a clear mandate that a club shall not profit at the expense of other clubs by going into administration. They have certain rules regarding this and they can as seen, add / interpret those rules within their framework to adapt to irregularities not originally envisaged.

 

The only possible recourse I can see is if the FL told us there would be no points deduction prior to the March deadline for SLH going into administration. That would be something that we would be able to appeal but no guarantee of the outcome. Lawyers may well look at the regulations for sporting bodies and claim there is a cast iron case but in reality the judicial system is very reluctant to step into this arena, especially when the teams are actually running themselves and for an issue they hold the moral high ground. Just imagine you brought a successful prosecution against such a body, what would be the outcome? They could just easily refuse and fold leaving the successful applicant with no where to go? Very likely the teams would then reform under another umbrella and we may have the remote possibility of joining that league, but under their rules which we would have absolutely no redress to now.

 

I would be delighted if Saints managed to escape without any punishment, but if we are penalised for administration or further CVA deductions, it will be because it is warranted and not the FL being the bogey man.

[Barry the Badger]

The rules state, if there is still a chance of relegation.. The club will surve the point deduction in the same season.

 

 

No they don't. Not quite.

 

The rules state that the points deduction will ALWAYS be applied in the current season UNLESS the club finishes in the bottom three anyway, in which case they are carried over.

 

Even if Stockport had have been 20 points clear of the drop zone with a game to go it still would have applied last season.

[SLAMMED]

Evening ladies.

[Saints foreva]

No they don't. Not quite.

 

The rules state that the points deduction will ALWAYS be applied in the current season UNLESS the club finishes in the bottom three anyway, in which case they are carried over.

 

Even if Stockport had have been 20 points clear of the drop zone with a game to go it still would have applied last season.

 

But how is that a punishment?

[alkasteve]

The same way it's been a punishment in the years since the Leicester administration event - go into admin you lost 10 points that season, amended for 10 next season if you got relegated due to Leeds/Boston going into admin on the last day of the season to avoid the loss next season.

 

Of course you could argue it should be automatic relegation which is a proper punishment, but then we'd be possibly looking at League 2 ourselves.

[Barry the Badger]

But how is that a punishment?

 

For a team who are comfortably in mid-table with no chance of promotion or relegation, it's not.

 

The whole thing is badly thought through. They just added the carry over thing to deal with teams who were already relegated and didn't bother to make it cover anybody else.

[Runaway]

what a fricken mess

[saint_stevo]

Lock this thread and start another at 06:00 tomorrow?

[JustMike]

The rules state, if there is still a chance of relegation.. The club will surve the point deduction in the same season.

 

Before Stockport went into admin, they were 13 points away from the relegation zone with a pretty decent GD over the bottom 3.

 

When they went into admin, they were 3 points away but tbh.. It was completely unlikely they would be relegated.

 

I think Northampton/Brighton had to win like 14-0. But because there was still a very small chance they could be relegated.. The rules state they get the point deduction in the same season they go into admin.

 

Our situation was doom and gloom either way, -10 in League One or relegation to League One after managing to stay up in The Championship.

 

Pretty pathetic, but they're the rules.

 

which still p!sse5 me off! They did it after the deadline, meaning it should have carried over to next season, as ours has done.

[maxi_sopez]

so whats the plan for tomorrow?!!?!

[saint_stevo]

so whats the plan for tomorrow?!!?!

 

f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5

[thorpie the sinner]

wake up, sit glued to the internet all day, get sacked then find out the league has refused to back down! on another note....

[Nexstar]

Surely the earliest we'd hear any developments would be around 3pm, based on the FL meeting being for the afternoon?