MongoNeil Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I'm getting so bored of this now, I just want it to be over. I've noticed that SSN have also got bored and dropped the story completely now too (well in the 10mins of it I watch in the morning when eating my cornflakes). On a side note is this now the thread with the greatest number of replies? I don't ever remember one as big as this, I'm sure there's a statto out there who'll prove me wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morph Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Morning Morph - as I asked yesterday, do you accept that Pinnacle have inveted a lot even to get this far ie at least £500K in club wages etc, or do you believe that Crouch has paid all the bills? I've no idea, sorry. Regards Morph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Then the FL says "shows us two CVA's" one for SFC, one for SLH. "Oh you dont have two, heres -15 points then"? I believe that this is the sticking point. SFC are NOT in administration and therefore are not able to, let alone DON'T NEED to, arrange a CVA. However the FL, to all intents and purposes, see us as in administration. So they will expect us to arrange a CVA. If we don't then they have the right, their rules remember, to further penalise us. Which is why they don't want us to have the option of an appeal. The way out, my simple view only, is for Pinnacle to agree no appeal BUT depending on the FL acknowledging our peculiar circumstances and not expecting us to provide a CVA. Which then would negate the FL from their, my perception only, dedicated course of wanting to hit us with a further points deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Don't know when you heard that. What I heard at 7.50ish was that Pinnacle expected to hear back from the FL this morning (nothing about a meeting or a conclusion), after they've had their lawyers look at what Pinnacle sent them yesterday, and yes that Pinnacle had a contingency plan. What will have happened IMO is that Pinnacle's lawyers are telling them that they could win an argument in court . Pinnacle have thus sent the FL a modified contract with their lawyers 'threats' of court action if it's not accepted. During yesterday the FL's lawyers will have been looking at the detail of that modification so that the FL can reply today. Again, solely IMO, they will say 'sod off'. The league's lawyers will tell them, 'no we think we would win in court'. That's what lawyers do. That's how they earn their money. If you didn't get opposite opinions from 2 sets of lawyers there'd be hardly any court cases and they'd all be out of work. I can't imagine what Lynam's contingency plan can be apart from to cave in. We have no time to play hardball with the league. They hold all the aces in this game. Surely he doesn't expect to do some fresh holding deal with Fry in return for paying the wages? This can't go on much longer. K. definately said that the FL were meeting and that this would conclude this morning. Not saying they meant the whole thing...just their meeting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Am I the only one who is starting to get a little board with the whole thing and just wish it would end so we can all get on with our every day way of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delmary Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I bet the football league use one standard contract which was never intended to be used for our situation (Eg holding company going into admin & no CVAs). It's like trying to fit something square into a round hole, you can't do it. I'm sure this is the case and therefore I'm not surprised the lawyers are jumping all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I believe that this is the sticking point. SFC are NOT in administration and therefore are not able to, let alone DON'T NEED to, arrange a CVA. However the FL, to all intents and purposes, see us as in administration. So they will expect us to arrange a CVA. If we don't then they have the right, their rules remember, to further penalise us. Which is why they don't want us to have the option of an appeal. The way out, my simple view only, is for Pinnacle to agree no appeal BUT depending on the FL acknowledging our peculiar circumstances and not expecting us to provide a CVA. Which then would negate the FL from their, my perception only, dedicated course of wanting to hit us with a further points deduction. I bet the football league use one standard contract which was never intended to be used for our situation (Eg holding company going into admin & no CVAs). It's like trying to fit something square into a round hole, you can't do it. I'm sure this is the case and therefore I'm not surprised the lawyers are jumping all over it. Both correct IMO. The problem with the FL is that they seem to be flexible with their own rules when it suits them (eg you holding company is in admin so here's a 10 point penalty) and rigid also when it suits them (eg the CVA issue). If they were consistant in their approach then you could understand it, oh and then you get no right of appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third Division South Days Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I bet the football league use one standard contract which was never intended to be used for our situation (Eg holding company going into admin & no CVAs). It's like trying to fit something square into a round hole, you can't do it. I'm sure this is the case and therefore I'm not surprised the lawyers are jumping all over it. If the bid from Pinnacle collapses because the FL are insisting on SFC producing a CVA which cannot be produced then surely Pinnacle could take legal action against the FL to recover the costs they have occured on the basis of the FL unmeetable demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren1 Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I agree, I think the contract and legalities regarding further deductions apply to a situation that is a little "different" to the one we find ourselves in. This leaves us exposed and Pinnicle rightly want those loopholes closed before signing. As stated Pinnicle are working ammicably with FL so I think they need to ammend the rules to allow our signing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Then the FL says "shows us two CVA's" one for SFC, one for SLH. "Oh you dont have two, heres -15 points then"? Hmm. But to demand two CVAs would be to acknowledge that the two companies were not "inextricably linked" surely. :smt102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I know I keep putting this forward, but what's stopping us putting the Football Club into administration too as a 'means to an end' exercise to close this catch-22 situation? That of course assumes Pinnacle are fighting the cause not to get more than -10 deduction rather than fighting the -10 itself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Engine Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 If (contrary to Lynam's previous statement) the issue concerns capping the deduction at 10 points rather than trying to preserve some route by which the 10 point deduction might be overturned, then this is a very difficult issue to resolve. The FL have said that, as far as they are concerned, Southampton Football Club is comprised of SFC Limited, SLH plc and the company that owns the stadium. In the FL's view, those three companies are inextricably linked. So, if any one or more of those companies enters into administration, the FL sporting sanctions will apply to the club as whole - hence the automatic 10 points deduction. In addition the FL statement said that "the other provisions of the League's insolvency policy also apply." This can only mean that, if SLH plc fails to emerge from administration with a Creditors Voluntary Agreement, the FL must impose further penalties on Southampton Football Club - regardless of whatever ownership structure is in place going forward. The FL cannot retreat from this position without undermining the whole Sporting Sanctions regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick65 Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Both correct IMO. The problem with the FL is that they seem to be flexible with their own rules when it suits them (eg you holding company is in admin so here's a 10 point penalty) and rigid also when it suits them (eg the CVA issue). If they were consistant in their approach then you could understand it, oh and then you get no right of appeal. This explanation seems to make a lot of sense to me. Pinnacle's concern is with points deductions, but future ones - not the one that's been in force for 2 months now. But they've got a stick to beat the FL with - namely Mawhinney's 'inextricably linked' comment. If the FL used that to dock us the 10, it surely follows that if the club is in new ownership, creditors satisfied etc, it shouldn't matter what state SLH is in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altoniansaints Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 take on SLH take it out of admin with SVA then clear debts as agreed close the company then open new one and sign club over?????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Engine Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 This explanation seems to make a lot of sense to me. Pinnacle's concern is with points deductions, but future ones - not the one that's been in force for 2 months now. But they've got a stick to beat the FL with - namely Mawhinney's 'inextricably linked' comment. If the FL used that to dock us the 10, it surely follows that if the club is in new ownership, creditors satisfied etc, it shouldn't matter what state SLH is in. Unfortunately, that's not true. The FL's view is that thefootball club must pay a future penalty for its past misdemeanours regardless of who owns the club in the future. It's all explained quite well in the Leeds arbitration case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 This explanation seems to make a lot of sense to me. Pinnacle's concern is with points deductions, but future ones - not the one that's been in force for 2 months now. Then why in interview does Matthew Le Tissier talk of wanting "a level playing field" would suggest that they want 0 points like everyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I know I keep putting this forward, but what's stopping us putting the Football Club into administration too as a 'means to an end' exercise to close this catch-22 situation? That of course assumes Pinnacle are fighting the cause not to get more than -10 deduction rather than fighting the -10 itself... It may have been put forward before, but I totally agree on both counts. If Pinnacle think they can fight the -10 ...... ????? Seriously doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I'm not getting at you (actually I blame trousers) You're not the first and won;t be the last.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Engine Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I know I keep putting this forward, but what's stopping us putting the Football Club into administration too as a 'means to an end' exercise to close this catch-22 situation? That of course assumes Pinnacle are fighting the cause not to get more than -10 deduction rather than fighting the -10 itself... The FL have formed the view that SFC Limited , SLH plc and the stadium company are "inextricably linked" - so that between them they form a single overarching entity which is Southampton Football Club. Putting SFC Limited into administration will NOT therefore result in the automatic deduction of a further 10 points. What it will mean is that BOTH SLH plc and SFC Limited will require a CVA and to have exited administration in order for Southampton Football Club to avoid further sanctions under the FL's insolvency policy - theoretically relegation to League 2 but, given that the fixture lists have been published, probably a further points deduction in League 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Stripe Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 It may have been put forward before, but I totally agree on both counts. If Pinnacle think they can fight the -10 ...... ????? Seriously doubt it. Most Saints fans have accepted the -10 points, so why are this lot fighting it? If they have wasted the last 3 weeks knowingly hellbent on overturning it, they could have just nailed the club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 If (contrary to Lynam's previous statement) the issue concerns capping the deduction at 10 points rather than trying to preserve some route by which the 10 point deduction might be overturned, then this is a very difficult issue to resolve. The FL have said that, as far as they are concerned, Southampton Football Club is comprised of SFC Limited, SLH plc and the company that owns the stadium. In the FL's view, those three companies are inextricably linked. So, if any one or more of those companies enters into administration, the FL sporting sanctions will apply to the club as whole - hence the automatic 10 points deduction. In addition the FL statement said that "the other provisions of the League's insolvency policy also apply." This can only mean that, if SLH plc fails to emerge from administration with a Creditors Voluntary Agreement, the FL must impose further penalties on Southampton Football Club - regardless of whatever ownership structure is in place going forward. The FL cannot retreat from this position without undermining the whole Sporting Sanctions regime. I think this is a key statement. IF the CVA and the threatened additional points deductions is the stumbling block then it will not be a trivial matter for the Football League to get around. If they make an exception for us then I would imagine all future clubs going into administration will look to exploit it. Not to mention the potential of clubs who previously went through the administration/CVA process looking to re-examine their cases. Again, IF that is the issue then the best way out for the FA (assuming they feel any pressure to do anything) is to actually acknowledge that the Football Club was not is administration but for Pinnacle to accept the -10 penalty. This would presumably have to be swiftly followed by a change in their rules to stop the parent/holding company confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 The FL have formed the view that SFC Limited , SLH plc and the stadium company are "inextricably linked" - so that between them they form a single overarching entity which is Southampton Football Club. Putting SFC Limited into administration will NOT therefore result in the automatic deduction of a further 10 points. What it will mean is that BOTH SLH plc and SFC Limited will require a CVA and to have exited administration in order for Southampton Football Club to avoid further sanctions under the FL's insolvency policy - theoretically relegation to League 2 but, given that the fixture lists have been published, probably a further points deduction in League 1. Excuse my non-legal brain, but am I right (1) that if SFC were to go into administration today and immediately come out under new ownership, it waould get a CVA, but (2) SLH is a problem because it's being wound up? And does that mean CVA is impossible for SLH or just that it doesn't meet the requirements? This seems very likely to me to be the central cause of the holdup, and without being unduly pessimistic, all too likely to be a dealbreaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Excuse my non-legal brain, but am I right (1) that if SFC were to go into administration today and immediately come out under new ownership, it waould get a CVA, but (2) SLH is a problem because it's being wound up? And does that mean CVA is impossible for SLH or just that it doesn't meet the requirements? This seems very likely to me to be the central cause of the holdup, and without being unduly pessimistic, all too likely to be a dealbreaker.In that case whose fault was it to wind up SLH? Fry I assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick65 Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Then why in interview does Matthew Le Tissier talk of wanting "a level playing field" would suggest that they want 0 points like everyone else? Obviously, I'm as much in the dark as everyone else, but it could mean several things - for instance: A general request to be treated fairly, not related to anything as specific as starting off with the same number of points as everyone else. A bargaining position, asking for something you don't expect to get, in the hope that a compromise is reached and the compromise is what you really wanted all along (i.e. 10 point deduction and nothing else). A recognition that accepting the -10 inevitably means future penalties, meaning the -10 has to be vigorously contested. Or something else completely. The 3rd one is the worry to me, but there must be examples of clubs that have been penalised for going into admin and not getting further penalties when they came out of it. Aren't there ? Whatever, this whole thing is doing my head in and I suspect I'm not alone .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Engine Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 In that case whose fault was it to wind up SLH? Fry I assume. Nick - SLH plc is still in administration - it hasn't been wound up yet. I think that for the club to avoid further sanctions SLH plc will need to exit administration with a CVA - even if this is just a short-term expedient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wireframebox Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Anyone else notice that MLT has gone very quiet all of a sudden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 By the way, why are the technicalities here subject to NDAs and shrouded in secrecy? Surely the process that the FL are asking SFC/SLH to follow is a publically published process so what's stopping the FL and/or Pinnacle issuing a statement about the principles and mechanics involved rather than us trying to guess what they are trying to achieve? Obviously I'm not suggesting they reveal anything confidential. I just can't see how the process they are being asked to follow is confidential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MongoNeil Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Anyone else notice that MLT has gone very quiet all of a sudden? That's what I said earlier, we're not even making the ticker on SSN at the moment :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Anyone else notice that MLT has gone very quiet all of a sudden? What do you expect him on everyday? He was on the other night with a phone call live to SSN as reported on here. He laid it out pretty clear what the position is and no point him stating the same over and over. Pinnacle are trying to thrash out a deal with the FL that gives them a level playing field. When that changes I am sure he will come back out of his bunker.....or the Guernsey/Jersey Yacht Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Nick - SLH plc is still in administration - it hasn't been wound up yet. I think that for the club to avoid further sanctions SLH plc will need to exit administration with a CVA - even if this is just a short-term expedient.right thanks Beer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saints_is_the_south Posted 25 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Just on ssn now breaking news that the players & staff haven't been paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northam Girls Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 That's what I said earlier, we're not even making the ticker on SSN at the moment :-( Oh yes we are - about 30 secs ago - staff not getting paid ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Apparently there are a lot of fairly p####d off staff wandering around the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navysaint Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 At least we can continue to be the south coast laughing stock again today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I assume that will now trigger KD going to the PFA to talk to them about us breaching their contracts (he is the players rep) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evo Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I know I keep putting this forward, but what's stopping us putting the Football Club into administration too as a 'means to an end' exercise to close this catch-22 situation? That of course assumes Pinnacle are fighting the cause not to get more than -10 deduction rather than fighting the -10 itself... Short answer: Time & Legal Ramifications Long(er) answer: Think through what has to happen when a company goes into administration. Then think about what the administrator has to do when he is first appointed, essentially before anything else can happen in the business. It's not a viable plan at this stage IMO. I assume that will now trigger KD going to the PFA to talk to them about us breaching their contracts (he is the players rep) Depends on how convincing TLs plea was yesterday I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 This is not the first time administrators have had to handle a football club in this position. These issues of an automatic 10 points, rights of appeal and FL conditions should have been clear many weeks ago and it was the administrators job to sort that out. Pinnacle knew about the 10 point deduction and the fact that there was only a slim hope of overturning it. By delaying any takeover by weeks the Club's preparation for a difficult season is undermined. Each day that goes by the worse it gets. If "Saints" was worth £10m to a buyer 3 weeks ago, today that price will be lower. A lot of business mistakes are being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wireframebox Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 What do you expect him on everyday? He was on the other night with a phone call live to SSN as reported on here. He laid it out pretty clear what the position is and no point him stating the same over and over. Pinnacle are trying to thrash out a deal with the FL that gives them a level playing field. When that changes I am sure he will come back out of his bunker.....or the Guernsey/Jersey Yacht Club. At a time when the group seriously need to keep the public sweet and on their side, you'd expect to have their front man assuring people. Instead you've had a lot of TL, where is Matt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 This is not the first time administrators have had to handle a football club in this position. These issues of an automatic 10 points, rights of appeal and FL conditions should have been clear many weeks ago and it was the administrators job to sort that out. Pinnacle knew about the 10 point deduction and the fact that there was only a slim hope of overturning it. By delaying any takeover by weeks the Club's preparation for a difficult season is undermined. Each day that goes by the worse it gets. If "Saints" was worth £10m to a buyer 3 weeks ago, today that price will be lower. A lot of business mistakes are being made. Salz and co will be rubbing their hands, their 5m kitty may well be needed after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evo Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 At least nobody has tried to claim that MLT has walked... yet. In other news, TLs call to action had drastic effect on the Streets of Thornhill as a lawyer is lynched. Meanwhile TL has now appointed Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law (I love that show): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I get the sinking feeling that today really is the last chance saloon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I get the sinking feeling that today really is the last chance saloon.and Dubai Phil is at Glastonbury and so he is out of the loop to give us news on any prospective arab involvement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I get the sinking feeling that today really is the last chance saloon. However tomorrow is Friday and there's always hope on a Friday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintstr1 Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I get the sinking feeling that today really is the last chance saloon. For the first time since Pinnacle went into exclusivity I feel you are right ....... It is all about to go T@TS UP .... IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I get the sinking feeling that today really is the last chance saloon. Yup ........ enter Jackson ....... another -15 points ......... and another 12 years of Nil Investment......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Couple of things: 1) I bet it's not Jim Ratcliffe. 2) I reckon the "Dutch" connection might continue, in name at least. Dutch connection? Bob Poortvliet - Jan's billionaire brother? ...or is de Haan a Dutch name? I thought it was Belgian/Flemish. ...or is there another Dutch link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 Yup ........ enter Jackson ....... another -15 points ......... and another 12 years of Nil Investment.........StR it is a bit rich for you to complian as you were gagging for us to go into administration, at least RL lost his money, right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Engine Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I'm not interested in the blame game but we have suffered multiple whammies:- 1. relegation from the prem 2. relegation from the CCC 3. messy administration 4. 10 points deduction 5. possible further relegation or minus 15 more points even the most optimistic skate couldn't have made this up ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 StR it is a bit rich for you to complian as you were gagging for us to go into administration, at least RL lost his money, right! Yes, I was all for Administration .......... but even I did not think that Barclays?Lowe would be STUPID enough to wait until ONE week after the Leagues cut off date before doing so .... that in itself STINKS, it guarenteed -10 Pinnacle ??? ..... IMHO, have never really come across as being 100% sincere. We knew and they knew of the 10 point penalty, and not many pundits thought that we could get out of it ............ yet Pinnacle have been making great play re this .... WHY ??? ........The Mystery Man is just that, a complete MYSTERY ..... a Load of Irish Blarney Everybody knows who I think will end up back in control ..... I have always thought this, as I think that he started the whole ball rolling. It won't be long before we are put in the real picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 25 June, 2009 Share Posted 25 June, 2009 I'm not interested in the blame game but we have suffered multiple whammies:- 1. relegation from the prem 2. relegation from the CCC 3. messy administration 4. 10 points deduction 5. possible further relegation or minus 15 more points even the most optimistic skate couldn't have made this up ... i was thinking last night, since we scorned GH we certainly have suffered.Perhaps some of his praying has worked afterall. add to your list beaten in the play-ofs cruelly and perhaps liquidation. A Pompey fan has definately let a genie out of a bottle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts