FL to hold emergency meeting

[Guided Missile]

Also GM your are way of the mark. Yes Pinnacle knew about the 10 points, but I can tell you that on Wednesday when the FL accepted the director listing all was fine it was not until last evening and today that when the FL went to issue the license they had the "NOT TO CHALLENGE" clause thrown in. This is nothing to do with money or the 10 points it is the chance to appeal against it. Who knows Pinnacle might have not appealed, but not being given the chance to because of the FL is wrong

I am far from being way off the mark....

 

The only reason Pinnacles' client is getting the bargain of the century in the form of a cut price 32,000 seater stadium is because SLH went into administration. This allows them an advantage over nearly every other club in League One in terms of potential revenue, thus player investment.

 

The £15-20M they are saving on the deal, on the back of shareholders and creditors who are losing their shirts, is costing ten points, ie 3 wins and a draw.

 

Like I said, Money Talks and Bull sh!t Walks....

Edited 19 June, 2009 by Guided Missile

[um pahars]

If SFC has, of today, a right to appeal then it cannot sign away that right.

 

Leeds signed away that right, even if they claimed it was under duress. This is no "normal" legal battle. GM's Stoneham Golf Club analogy is rather simplified, but the context is closer to the truth than many on here seem to think.

[Um Bongo]

I got monday off. Where will the meeting be?

[Gordon Mockles]

Jan, if it's an emergency meeting you would think they could convene tomorrow, they must have known this was likely to happen. They are tinkering with people's livlehoods not to mention the fans emotions. Bunch of out of touch, ill-fitting suits out of their depth facing a catch 22 imo.

 

More like an egotistical, tory boy, cantankerous old men's club....pig headed ignorance that refuses to move with the times, no matter how it effects others, their personal agendas & already flawed and chequered reputations. I'm all with Pinnacle. I'd not let the FL take the pish out of principal.

 

Typical Saints though. You can never expect good fortune. I was foolish to believe (50x after being let down, hopes built up...) we were at a brave new dawn (hence hew avatar, new horizons!). Nope, if the past board weren't bad enough, it could be the football league itself & the remnants of the recently departed (that hypocritical, smug, goal post moving, arrogant b*stard Mawhinney) settling old scores and killing of our long suffering club in the process.

 

Ok, maybe over-reaction but I am extremely fearful. Pinnacle won't have the p*ss taken out of them it seems (and rightly so) and now we've an emergency meeting Monday with the gaggle of old farts (FL) who strive to do as they please without one iota or care for smaller clubs or the football community. All power and position with them. If only they could control bungs and corruption in football as well as they moved goal posts, changed rules & incompetently attempted to run a football league. We'd have no problems then! All hypothetical, of course! I didn't really mean that *splutter*

 

An extremely unhappy Mr Mockles! :mad:

Edited 19 June, 2009 by Gordon Mockles

[Whitey Grandad]

Leeds signed away that right, even if they claimed it was under duress. This is no "normal" legal battle. GM's Stoneham Golf Club analogy is rather simplified, but the context is closer to the truth than many on here seem to think.

If it's under duress then a contract is normally unenforceable.

[Give it to Ron]

I am far from being way off the mark....

 

The only reason Pinnacles' client is getting the bargain of the century in the form of a cut price 32,000 seater stadium is because SLH went into administration. This allows them an advantage over nearly every other club in League One in terms of potential revenue, thus player investment.

 

The £15-20M they are saving on the deal, on the back of shareholders and creditors who are losing their shirts, is costing ten points, ie 3 wins and a draw.

 

Like I said, Money Talks and Bull sh!t Walks....

 

I criticised you the other day for your Money Walks post....I think now after today you are bang on the money.

This 10 point thing stinks...Leeds had far more and this galvanised their support into a feeling of us against the world and so would be and if there was the money to spend as advised it would not be a worry.

 

Our revenue stream would be in the top 5 in the division, in the next couple of years Pinnacle would see there investment recoup 5 fold with promotion and the credit crunch turned round.

 

GM I apologise.

[Whitey Grandad]

I criticised you the other day for your Money Walks post....I think now after today you are bang on the money.

This 10 point thing stinks...Leeds had far more and this galvanised their support into a feeling of us against the world and so would be and if there was the money to spend as advised it would not be a worry.

 

Our revenue stream would be in the top 5 in the division, in the next couple of years Pinnacle would see there investment recoup 5 fold with promotion and the credit crunch turned round.

 

GM I apologise.

These are all fair points, but you would expect a prospective new owner to use all means to maximise the potential return on their investment. If that means waiting until Monday afternoon, then it may be a worthwhile tactic.

[Give it to Ron]

These are all fair points, but you would expect a prospective new owner to use all means to maximise the potential return on their investment. If that means waiting until Monday afternoon, then it may be a worthwhile tactic.

 

Even risking getting gazumped?

[Whitey Grandad]

Even risking getting gazumped?

Maybe (and lose £500k), but that is their decision for them to make.

[um pahars]

If it's under duress then a contract is normally unenforceable.

 

That's exactly what Leeds said, and the League still told Leeds to f** Off.

 

The League's decision stood.

 

 

 

Here's Leeds taking their duress case to court (and eventually an Arbitration Panel)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-514478/Leeds-appeal-15-point-penalty-court.html

 

And here's a report dismissing Leeds claim.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/01/leedsunited.leagueonefootball1

 

 

 

Here's some more info from the League that throws light on the whole process.

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/dc/ed/0,,10794~126428,00.pdf

[Whitey Grandad]

That's exactly what Leeds said, and the League still told Leeds to f** Off.

 

The League's decision stood.

 

 

 

Here's Leeds taking their duress case to court (and eventually an Arbitration Panel)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-514478/Leeds-appeal-15-point-penalty-court.html

 

And here's a report dismissing Leeds claim.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/01/leedsunited.leagueonefootball1

 

 

 

Here's some more info from the League that throws light on the whole process.

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/dc/ed/0,,10794~126428,00.pdf

I would argue that our case was different (I would, wouldn't I?) in that the approval of the League is conditional on a 'no appeal' agreement

 

What is more relevant is why the League care whether we appeal or not. They could simply leave the matter to another day and let the appeal committee make the decision. Why do they feel the need to apply a 'no appeal' clause?

[um pahars]

I would argue that our case was different (I would, wouldn't I?) in that the approval of the League is conditional on a 'no appeal' agreement

 

What is more relevant is why the League care whether we appeal or not. They could simply leave the matter to another day and let the appeal committee make the decision. Why do they feel the need to apply a 'no appeal' clause?

 

I think it's because:

 

(a) the league want to be seen to be fair and consistent, and arguably our PLC smoke and mirrors is not fair considering what so many clubs have had to go through, and

 

(b) they don't want to get dragged into courts and have legal cases springing up all over the place and legal battles replacing those on the pitch.

[DaveyR]

Here's a "contact us" email to vent your frustrations: fl@football-league.co.uk

[Whitey Grandad]

I think it's because:

 

(a) the league want to be seen to be fair and consistent, and arguably our PLC smoke and mirrors is not fair considering what so many clubs have had to go through, and

 

(b) they don't want to get dragged into courts and have legal cases springing up all over the place and legal battles replacing those on the pitch.

Quite probably, but our set-up predated their rules and if they are not appropriate then they should be changed through the proper procedures and not made up on the hoof..

[the boy from saints]

Perhaps this is where King Kev is getting involved...ordinarily an ordinary club vs the FL would have just one outcome. But if a football legend were to present a case against the league on behalf of a club...the bad publicity for the FL may just be enough for them to start playing fair? Or is this just an alchohol fuelled daydream?

[Badger]

Is there a more authorative source than the Echo reporting the FL meeting proposed for Monday?

[Pierre]

Though it's hard to admit the FL are probably morally right (in that we deserve a 10 point penalty) and legally wrong and thus asking for us to sign of our right of appeal.

[um pahars]

Quite probably, but our set-up predated their rules and if they are not appropriate then they should be changed through the proper procedures and not made up on the hoof..

 

As I was saying to Exit2 earlier tonight, I think many of the League's rules probably come the late 19th Century!!!!

 

Things have moved on at a spectacular rate in recent decades/years and I think it's fair to say that the administrators of the game have struggled to adapt to this pace of change.

 

I'm certainly not making excuses for inefficient and sht run organisations, but the fact is that as a football club we will benefit if we comeo out the other side of administration and therefore we deserve the same punishment that has been handed out to a number of clubs before us.

[NickG]

um - is this fair tho;

the league state that parent company going bust does not mean club will get penalty

our structure pre-dates the rules

no other club has had a penalty when holding company only went bust

there has been no deceit

 

we may benefit,but has anyone else had the same set of circs and been punished?

[Whitey Grandad]

As I was saying to Exit2 earlier tonight, I think many of the League's rules probably come the late 19th Century!!!!

 

Things have moved on at a spectacular rate in recent decades/years and I think it's fair to say that the administrators of the game have struggled to adapt to this pace of change.

 

I'm certainly not making excuses for inefficient and sht run organisations, but the fact is that as a football club we will benefit if we comeo out the other side of administration and therefore we deserve the same punishment that has been handed out to a number of clubs before us.

The amount of benefit would depend on the deal that is agreed. If any new owner were to pick up where the previous had left off then there would have been no benefit. Plenty of clubs have found wealthy new backers which gave them an advantage but they were not penalised. As you say, these rules are antiquated and obsolete but we agreed to abide by them. The appeal would not be over their fairness but the correctness of their application.

[um pahars]

The amount of benefit would depend on the deal that is agreed. If any new owner were to pick up where the previous had left off then there would have been no benefit. .

 

But that will not be the case with us. There is no way in the world that Pinnacle (or anyone else for that matter) will be paying off all our creditors in full. If we come out of administration then we will have ahd a significant amount of debt/liabilities wiped off.

 

Plenty of clubs have found wealthy new backers which gave them an advantage but they were not penalised. As you say, these rules are antiquated and obsolete but we agreed to abide by them. The appeal would not be over their fairness but the correctness of their application.

 

Since the rules have been introduced, all clubs have been penalised.

 

And if we're talking about fair, then there is no fairness about escaping a points deduction that many clubs have suffered just because we have a holding company. the Football Club will benefit from coming out of administration and that is unfair on our competitors.

[Whitey Grandad]

But that will not be the case with us. There is no way in the world that Pinnacle (or anyone else for that matter) will be paying off all our creditors in full. If we come out of administration then we will have ahd a significant amount of debt/liabilities wiped off.

 

 

 

Since the rules have been introduced, all clubs have been penalised.

 

And if we're talking about fair, then there is no fairness about escaping a points deduction that many clubs have suffered just because we have a holding company. the Football Club will benefit from coming out of administration and that is unfair on our competitors.

What's the difference between writing off some debts and renegotiating you mortgage to a more advantageous rate?

[70's Mike]

imo the meeting will be to announce they accept the pinnacle deal but that the points deduction is now 25 point.

anyone who plays football and has appealed against a sending off or booking at local fa level will know that 50% of the time the penalty goes up on appeal, the fl is no different

"blaziers with power" are very dangerous animals

[Whitey Grandad]

imo the meeting will be to announce they accept the pinnacle deal but that the points deduction is now 25 point.

anyone who plays football and has appealed against a sending off or booking at local fa level will know that 50% of the time the penalty goes up on appeal, the fl is no different

"blaziers with power" are very dangerous animals

Tottenham got their deduction reduced to a slap on the wrist, different league though.

[70's Mike]

Tottenham got their deduction reduced to a slap on the wrist, different league though.

 

LONDON club

[Whitey Grandad]

LONDON club

Of course, silly me.

[Amesbury Saint]

other than the Echo - why is it an emergency meeting.

 

Afterall the 21 days were always going to end today. Perhaps they had the meeting booked for sometime?

 

Trying to get 72 chairmen together for an emergency meeting must be impossible!

[Amesbury Saint]

perhaps they dont need all 72 chairmen

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/BoardProfiles/0,,10794~1356528,00.html

[Saints67]

Football League Board is made up of the following: -

Anthony Kleanthous who is the current chairman of League Two Barnet FC.

Lord (Haw Haw) Mawhinney we know all about

Ian Ritchie is Chief Executive of the All England Club (yes he is a tennis fella and ex Director at West Ham)

David Sheepshanks is the former chairman of Ipswich Town football and now has a unpaid non executive role.

Neil Doncaster is the former Chief Executive of Norwich City Football Club.

Peter Powell is a Director of Colchester United

Lorraine Rogers is a Director of Tranmere Rovers.

Edited 19 June, 2009 by Saints67

[Gordon Mockles]

But that will not be the case with us. There is no way in the world that Pinnacle (or anyone else for that matter) will be paying off all our creditors in full. If we come out of administration then we will have ahd a significant amount of debt/liabilities wiped off.

 

Since the rules have been introduced, all clubs have been penalised.

 

And if we're talking about fair, then there is no fairness about escaping a points deduction that many clubs have suffered just because we have a holding company. The Football Club will benefit from coming out of administration and that is unfair on our competitors.

 

I do think UP has a very valid point and I entirely agree. Earlier, I was seething at the Football League and the manner in which they operate but, after calming and contemplating, fairness is the over-ruling issue. I am still furious with the manner in which the FL have acted but sense has also shone through my terminable frustration.

 

I would rather we take the 10 points on the chin and then rebuild, having suffered the same penalty as the many other insolvent clubs before us.

 

The entire reason the 10 point pentalty was imposed was to prevent football clubs benefitting from administration (unsustainable finances) and to keep the sport fair and competitive (let's ignore the big money men associated with Man City and Chelsea as that's an entirely different argumentfor another day). If we escaped the 10 point deduction, we would have benefitted from admin., found a loop hole in the rules, made the FL look even more foolish than presently and, worst of all, opened up a huge, gaping hole in the proverbial football dam, potentially flooding Mawhinney and the Football League with a tidal wave of legal cases from clubs previously deducted points and the ensuing financial losses.

 

I am unsure what will happen Monday but I am bemused to think the pathetic conduct of the Football League could jeopardise the very future of our Footbal Club, namely The Pinnacle takeover. It feels so unjust, after such continual built up optimism, perpetually shattered by every twist & turn in the never ending saga of Southampton Football. Shocking!

[um pahars]

What's the difference between writing off some debts and renegotiating you mortgage to a more advantageous rate?

 

£££££££'s plus you're not seriously comparing a multilateral agreement that both sides are in agreement agree with, with a unilateral one where the creditors are looking to salvage whatever they can from the wreckage are you???

[Wade Garrett]

Take the ten point penalty (as I believe we should), and go out and win the first ten games of the season. After that send Mawhinney a bottle of champagne for galvanising the club and proving a point to the Tory incompetent.

 

It's not rocket science is it?

[Wade Garrett]

But that will not be the case with us. There is no way in the world that Pinnacle (or anyone else for that matter) will be paying off all our creditors in full. If we come out of administration then we will have ahd a significant amount of debt/liabilities wiped off.

 

 

 

Since the rules have been introduced, all clubs have been penalised.

 

And if we're talking about fair, then there is no fairness about escaping a points deduction that many clubs have suffered just because we have a holding company. the Football Club will benefit from coming out of administration and that is unfair on our competitors.

 

A very honest and fair assessment of our situation. We should take the ten points and get on with it.

[Gordon Mockles]

Tottenham got their deduction reduced to a slap on the wrist, different league though.

 

Different sized club with a different board, different contacts in different positions of power. Making no aspersions whatsoever but you do have to wonder how some decisions are brought about. What was the deal with West Ham?! Were they bought out before admin? Shame if it wasn't the same situation but sadly think it was not.

 

Personally, I'd like to see a big club fall. But in that, the Football League/FA would have itself failed, and they won't let that happen.

 

It's all a case of big boys and their games. Sadly, the minions suffer!

[Whitey Grandad]

£££££££'s plus you're not seriously comparing a multilateral agreement that both sides are in agreement agree with, with a unilateral one where the creditors are looking to salvage whatever they can from the wreckage are you???

Merely a question of degree, not principle.

[Whitey Grandad]

Different sized club with a different board, different contacts in different positions of power. Making no aspersions whatsoever but you do have to wonder how some decisions are brought about. What was the deal with West Ham?! Were they bought out before admin? Shame if it wasn't the same situation but sadly think it was not.

 

Personally, I'd like to see a big club fall. But in that, the Football League/FA would have itself failed, and they won't let that happen.

 

It's all a case of big boys and their games. Sadly, the minions suffer!

Life's not fair. I remember when Tottenham had the 12 point deduction imposed, stewards at the club were saying that they wouldn't stick. As somebody else said "They wouldn't have the balls"

[krissyboy31]

A very honest and fair assessment of our situation. We should take the ten points and get on with it.

 

Whatever we think about the validity of the 10 point penalty is not particularly the issue here. To deny ones right of appeal is completely scandalous and should be fought.

[Amesbury Saint]

Whatever we think about the validity of the 10 point penalty is not particularly the issue here. To deny ones right of appeal is completely scandalous and should be fought.

 

do we want to watch saints next season?

[Whitey Grandad]

If the Football league board decision goes against us on Monday, can we appeal?

[um pahars]

Merely a question of degree, not principle.

 

I'm sorry but they are two totally different scenarios that have little in common.

 

To suggest otherwise is really stretching things here.

[um pahars]

I suugest that people would do well to read through the League's position regarding the "Leeds" situation as it is quite eye opening on a number of levels and answers a few questions (including why going to the High Court in a normal way is not an option to us).

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/dc/ed/0,,10794~126428,00.pdf

[Beer Engine]

But that will not be the case with us. There is no way in the world that Pinnacle (or anyone else for that matter) will be paying off all our creditors in full. If we come out of administration then we will have ahd a significant amount of debt/liabilities wiped off.

 

 

 

Since the rules have been introduced, all clubs have been penalised.

 

And if we're talking about fair, then there is no fairness about escaping a points deduction that many clubs have suffered just because we have a holding company. the Football Club will benefit from coming out of administration and that is unfair on our competitors.

 

Quite so ..

 

There is a certain irony in the fact that many on here are complaining about the injustice of the fact that we have failed to cheat the spirit of the rules on a technicality ...

[um pahars]

Why do the FL want it in writing that we arent going to appeal?....because they are panicing and know they are wrong. They know we are probably legally in the right (as opposed to "in the spirit of the game") But who dares challenge the FL and wins? No one.

 

The thing that bugs me is..WE have a RIGHT to appeal (like mowhinney once said) and i cant see how this can stop them signing off the takeover.

 

Maybe the League are doing exactly what they did with Leeds, in that they have told Pinnacle that Saints NewCo will have to start in League 2 (i.e. Dvision 4) in line with their Regulations.

 

But of course they can use their discretion and keep us in League 1 as long as we accept the penalty and sign away our right to appeal on the points deduction.

[Red and White Army]

What's the difference between writing off some debts and renegotiating you mortgage to a more advantageous rate?

 

Simple - repayment of the principal. When you renegotiate your 150k mortgage at 8% you don't expect to turn it into a 70k mortgage at the same time? You expect to remortage to 150k at 4%.

 

We are asking the creditors to wipe out a substantial portion of their loans to us, not simply asking to pay less interest.

[SaintBobby]

With great respect, this is a total load of ******...

Firstly, you have to be in a position to apply for an interim injunction and the only corporate entity that can do that is SLH aka Mark Fry and I can guarantee he won't. Secondly, you then have to hope that the judge will grant the interim injunction and I can tell you that the rule with these is that if the potential damage caused by the alleged breach you are trying to injunct can be remediated by an award of quantifiable damages, you won't get one. As the season doesn't start yet, I am trying to figure out any damage the leagues' position will cause, TBH.

 

This is like me wanting to join Stoneham Golf Club and applying for an injunction to prevent them from cutting my handicap, FFS.

 

Get real, everybody. The 10 point deduction was known when the deal was agreed with the administrator. All the league wants is for the new owner to pay the football related debts and reach a CVA with the non-football creditors and not to force the League to spend a million or two on legal expenses to let us play in their league...

 

 

...oh, and what's the betting that the two remaining questions that Tony Lynam has for the Administrator are:

1. Will you take an IOU for most of the asking price, and
   
2. Will you take an IOU for most of the asking price....
   

 

I'm not at all sure this is right.

 

Firstly, it strikes me that Pinnacle may have a case for an injunction. They can argue that their business plan is being held up - or even destroyed - by the Football League. It's not at all clear that SLH are the only plaintiffs here. By way of example, if I'm about the buy up a local restaurant or bar from a compnay in administartion and the municipal authority arbitarily and unreasonably prevents me from doing so at the last minute, I may have a case in law against the local authority.

 

You are right that injunctions requiring "specific performance" are rare. Usually courts would lean against an injunction on these grounds and rely on the matter going to damages. E.g. if I book Elton John to play a gig and at the last minute he says "I can't be bothered to turn up", it is unlikely that I can get an injunction forcing him to perform, I'd have to sue him for damages.

 

BUT... the SLH/SFC/FL situation seems to be case where an injunction requiring specific performance MIGHT be appropriate. This is because (a) the burden on the FL to comply with the specific performance sought is very limited (i.e. they need to allow us to compete in League One and let the -10 issue go to a tribunal, hardly a great burden on their part...probably requires Mawhinney's signature on two pieecs of paper), (b) the damages suffered by Pinnacle/SLH/SFC are both difficult to quantify and potentially enormous (e.g. we were intending to sell season tickets from Monday and anticipated a £2m revenue by the end of July....we believe we could run this outfit at a £1m profit per annum in perpetuity etc etc), and - just possibly - © the public interest is served by specific performance in this instance.

 

The case is therefore very easy to distinguish from your example of seeking an injunction against a golf club on the basis of their treatment of your handicap.

Edited 20 June, 2009 by SaintBobby

[alpine_saint]

I am convinced that GM is chuffed our takeover has hit a snag and might not happen.

[Verbal]

I think it's time to take a good look at 'Lord' Mawhinney's expenses.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Jan, if it's an emergency meeting you would think they could convene tomorrow, they must have known this was likely to happen. They are tinkering with people's livlehoods not to mention the fans emotions. Bunch of out of touch, ill-fitting suits out of their depth facing a catch 22 imo.

 

What's more galling is that it's really their own making as well!

[Matthew Le God]

Maybe the League are doing exactly what they did with Leeds, in that they have told Pinnacle that Saints NewCo will have to start in League 2 (i.e. Dvision 4) in line with their Regulations.

 

But of course they can use their discretion and keep us in League 1 as long as we accept the penalty and sign away our right to appeal on the points deduction.

 

If the FL were so sure of that position why don't they just stand by it? An emergency meeting to me suggests they will on Monday be trying to come up with a statement that saves face as best possible as they know we have a very strong case.

[um pahars]

If the FL were so sure of that position why don't they just stand by it? An emergency meeting to me suggests they will on Monday be trying to come up with a statement that saves face as best possible as they know we have a very strong case.

 

Maybe they've given us the same three options:

 

1. Cease to be members (i.e. withdraw from the League).

 

2. Start in Div 4 (as per Rule 11)

 

3. Stay in Div 3, but accept the points deduction

 

and we've not agreed to any and so they are going back to agree on next step.

 

I personally think there's a game of brinkmanship going on (and I can't blame Pinnacle for trying it on), it's just that I very much doubt the League will concede on this issue.

 

They hold all the aces (i.e. we have to make them let us into their game), there are a number of recent precedents (all the rulings from the Leeds case make this clear, including the support of an Independent Arbitration Panel) and as the voting showed with the Leeds case, they probably have the support of the majority of their member.

 

IMHO they won't be backing down.