Email campaign to expose what the slithery snake Mawhinney has done

[trousers]

if you look at it objectively we would gain an unfair advantage from it.

 

But haven't we already suffered 'punishment' for our overspending? Our relegation is a direct result of the cut-back countermeasures put in place last season to tackle the debt.

 

I acknowledge that the FL's rulkes don't differentiate between clubs that are/were trying to address their financial plight and those that plough on regardless but, as you say, looking at it objectively, we have not gained from going into debt, quite the opposite. And the FL rules are there to counter "gain", aren't they?

 

In fact, the FL rules give no incentive to a club to try and rescue itself.

[benjii]

Glad to see you are keeping an open mind and I am sure they said the same about your email.

 

I think there are a number of facts people are missing here, technicalities aside.

 

We (Southampton - the club, regardless of how it was structured) had £20m of debt. This debt was built up buying and paying players, building a stadium and a training ground, and financing world class catering.

 

Post administration we still have all of those things except the debt has been reduced to say £5m. Regardless of the rules, that's not fair on the other clubs.

 

As a fan, I'd love for us to escape the 10 point penalty, but if you look at it objectively we would gain an unfair advantage from it.

 

I don't blame Pinacle for trying, they're just trying to maximise the value of their investment, but we shouldn't turn it into a moral crusade. We're trying to bend the rules / cheat the system - if it works, great, but we shouldn't hold our heads up high about it.

 

(figures are examples only)

 

I agree with the sentiments but (apparently):

 

1) We're not asking for the points to be reinstated; we're simply objecting to being asked to waive a right of appeal - why are we being asked to do this? It seems odd, arbitrary, and somewhat despotic.

 

2) Is it right for the FL to refuse to allow a purchase to go ahead unless the purchasers make a huge concession like that? The points have been applied; the new purchasers will live with that unless they win an appeal - why isn't that enough.

 

3) We didn't "bend" the rules or seek to "cheat" them. Our parent company went into admin. The rules were badly drafted. The FL has made a decision that cannot be justified by reference to the written agreed rules. Now, there may be some disconnect between the moral option and the option prescribed by the rules, but that is the fault of the rule makers and is due to short-sightedness and/or bad drafting, it is not the fault of SFC. SFC hasn't come up with some Byzantine form of corporate sourcery; it was part of an established structure which exists throughout the world of business and is shared by many other clubs.

 

and one more (cheeky one) for good measure.....!

 

4) If Lowe hadn't ****ed this all up so badly in terms of timing, it wouldn't be an issue!

[madsent]

An appeal against the sanction is allowed under League Regulations where insolvency events have occurred due to circumstances which are deemed to be unforeseeable and unavoidable.

 

That seems like a very ambiguous clause to me. Is it for the appellant to prove that the circumstances were unforeseen and unavoidable or for the League to prove that it was foreseen or avoidable ? In our case, our fate was seemingly set by an arbitrary decision made by a bank that, up to that point, had supported SLH while it attempted to lower it's overdraft. I think it could be argued that the board could not have foreseen that the bank would stop supporting it when it did and it was certainly unavoidable. However, the League would probably counter with the idea that the previous season's overspend, leading to an unsupportable overdraft, made administration something that was foreseen by everyone. That it was unavoidable is rendered moot by the "and" in the clause.

[Mole]

As a fan, I'd love for us to escape the 10 point penalty, but if you look at it objectively we would gain an unfair advantage from it.

 

I don't blame Pinacle for trying, they're just trying to maximise the value of their investment, but we shouldn't turn it into a moral crusade. We're trying to bend the rules / cheat the system - if it works, great, but we shouldn't hold our heads up high about it.

 

(figures are examples only)

 

Being a football fan is all about rivalry. If we get the decision overturned i'm gonna be crowing like **** about it. SFC is my club and i couldn't give a flying **** what other clubs fans think.

[stevegrant]

Glad to see you are keeping an open mind and I am sure they said the same about your email.

 

I think there are a number of facts people are missing here, technicalities aside.

 

We (Southampton - the club, regardless of how it was structured) had £20m of debt. This debt was built up buying and paying players, building a stadium and a training ground, and financing world class catering.

 

Post administration we still have all of those things except the debt has been reduced to say £5m. Regardless of the rules, that's not fair on the other clubs.

 

As a fan, I'd love for us to escape the 10 point penalty, but if you look at it objectively we would gain an unfair advantage from it.

 

I don't blame Pinacle for trying, they're just trying to maximise the value of their investment, but we shouldn't turn it into a moral crusade. We're trying to bend the rules / cheat the system - if it works, great, but we shouldn't hold our heads up high about it.

 

(figures are examples only)

On the flipside, we're campaigning for the Football League to enforce their own rules properly. They a) failed to close the loophole when they had the opportunity after Derby went into administration (obviously before they brought in the points deductions), and b) failed to close the loophole or raise objections when we were relegated to the Football League in 2005.

 

If they hadn't been so retarded over the course of a number of years, we wouldn't be having this discussion as we'd have clearly broken at least one rule. As far as the rules are written, we've broken none.

 

I agree that from a moral standpoint we're bang to rights, but criminals get away with countless crimes on technicalities based on the law not being tight/explicit enough (or enforcement procedures not being followed, etc) - it's a very similar situation.

 

The Football League should close the loophole at the first available opportunity, but they failed to do so at their AGM recently.

[CB Fry]

Precisely. The law may be an ass, but it's still the law. If the rules are not in place it's everyone legal right to exploit loopholes etc. It's corrupt of Mawhinney to withdraw our right of appeal just because he's scared of losing.

 

 

Actually, it isn't the "law". It's a football league, managed and run by its members.

 

There are no laws to break or adhere to.

 

Mawhinney isn't "scared of losing", he knows he would win again and again and again and again. We could appeal fifty times and they'd win every time.

 

Mawhinney wants to stop us appealing to stop everyone wasting time and money going into the back pockets of lawyers.

[trousers]

 

4) If Lowe hadn't ****ed this all up so badly in terms of timing, it wouldn't be an issue!

 

My 'reading-between-the-lines' understanding is that it was Barclays who decided what date to pull the plug, rather than Lowe. Not sure how much 'power' he had to influence Barclays to pull the plug a week earlier though....anyone?

[Mole]

Actually, it isn't the "law". It's a football league, managed and run by its members.

 

There are no laws to break or adhere to.

 

Mawhinney isn't "scared of losing", he knows he would win again and again and again and again. We could appeal fifty times and they'd win every time.

 

Mawhinney wants to stop us appealing to stop everyone wasting time and money going into the back pockets of lawyers.

 

The law, the rules, it's the same difference because the rules are legally binding.

 

Mawhinney is **** scared of losing, hence why he's so desperate to prevent an appeal. The advice of our Lawyers is that we have a strong case.

[benjii]

My 'reading-between-the-lines' understanding is that it was Barclays who decided what date to pull the plug, rather than Lowe. Not sure how much 'power' he had to influence Barclays to pull the plug a week earlier though....anyone?

 

Yes, you are right of course.

 

It was a joke point - I don't want to start a "Rupert thread".

 

I think it's fair to say that the announcement came as a shock to Lowe BUT something must have seriously happened to sour the relationship. Brinksmanship couple with unfounded arrogance on the part of Lowe? Surely not.

[Springhill]

My response to the FL email..................................................................Dear Patricia Brown Thank you very much for your prompt and detailed reply to my Email regarding Southampton FC. My main concern is that apparently the Football League are attempting to force the prospective purchaser of the club to forego the right of appeal against the points deduction by withholding the clubs registration. It seems to me that all the purchasers want is an opportunity to put their case. If then denied so be it as far as I and many others are concerned .!

[OldNick]

Actually, it isn't the "law". It's a football league, managed and run by its members.

 

There are no laws to break or adhere to.

 

Mawhinney isn't "scared of losing", he knows he would win again and again and again and again. We could appeal fifty times and they'd win every time.

 

Mawhinney wants to stop us appealing to stop everyone wasting time and money going into the back pockets of lawyers.

I accept your point but if you look at Formula 1 did they not go to court about the rules(?), and that is run in a similar way?

[Junior Mullet]

If Pinacle really are being asked to waive their right to appeal, we must all fight that.

 

I don't understand why anyone would suggest we just lay down - we don't like it when our team roll over do we.

 

Let's roll out the real spirit of Southampton and fight the spineless idiots whose initial decision was utterly wrong in the first place.

[Junior Mullet]

Isnt there a sports tribunal we could go to, even if we sign up to what the FL are demanding, by signing up under protest because surely the FL's demand, if true, is itself surely wrong.

[John Smith]

With the FL response, it promted my memory as to how this club 'was' structured, it used to be an arm of the SLH plc. For example, the insurance was another arm, the radio station another, and I'm sure there were more. Therefore, the SFC arm of the SLH were a separate entity but governed by the plc. Since relegation to the CCC, SLH had to sell off the other arms of their business in order to survive, to such a point where the SFC became the majority 'earner' for the SLH.

 

Now, I' m not sure but this means that the SLH was always the umbrella company and the SFC, the subsidiary, and as many have pointed out, the SFC was not in administration. Other companies have this and sometimes you see a management buyout where the local managers purchase the only part of the business that can make them money and the parent company uses that money to pay off some debt.

 

I think the reason they can;t then turn around and now say that the SFC is the only money making part of the parent company and therefore is effectively in administration is because they'd have to go back over the accounts and separate the other business debt from the SFC debt. Because they won;t do this and aren't really able to do it, you have to always assume two separate entities between SFC and SLH.

 

The FL rules are therefore very interesting as they keep stating that the 'club' must be in admin, and that they don't get involved in the legalities of the plc administration, just offer advice to the club.

 

I think what is happening here is that the FL awarded the -10 points to the SFC under SLH and in order for the FL to approve the SFc registration under the new owners, the new owners are asked to accept this decision, therefore, in accepting it, the are waiving there rights to appeal.

 

That's why we're getting all this other stuff, because the FL are trying to show that they are run by the members and the members voted on this rule, the FL implemented this rule, and if the new owners want to become members, they must accept the passed decisions of the current members. If they won't, they won't gain membership, eg, no SFC in the FL.

[saintbletch]

I thought I'd take a different approach. As I am embarrassed that I couldn't be arsed to get passionate about this when the likes of Luton were being kicked to death by the Football League, I thought it would now be wrong to plead our special case. But I still think the FL has some changes to put in place. Will keep you appraised of any reply I receive.

 

Dear Lord Mawhinney,

 

I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the Football League and in doing so I am trying to remove the emotion from my correspondence, which as a fan of Southampton Football Club is not easy given the problems we find ourselves in.

 

I ask you to consider two things:

 

1) Given the extraordinary state of the economy at this time that has given rise to quite incredible actions from governments and legislative bodies worldwide, should the Football League not reconsider its sporting sanctions policies against clubs that find themselves entering or close to administration?

 

In these extraordinary times we have seen massive, ancient and proud commercial institutions simply cease to exist and even well run businesses starved of the oxygen of credit also struggling. Should the Football League not review its sporting sanction regulations in the light of current economic uncertainty? Clubs that were run relatively responsibly are finding themselves, and will continue to find themselves sailing close to the Football League's rules on administration simply as a matter of being in business in one of the worst recessions in history.

 

Whilst in business we can afford to take a hard-nosed commercial decision and say that it’s survival of the fittest, in the sporting world I think the Football League has a moral obligation to do what it can to keep clubs in existence. Just as the government realised that banks simply could not fail, I believe the Football League must look again at the draconian policies that, whilst put in place for all the right reasons, are right now out of step with the needs of the majority of clubs.

 

Who is likely to buy a football club from administration in these times when the club would start the next season with incredible sporting penalties. Again I say that in “normal” times we could expect clubs to be able to be bought and trade/play their way back to some stability. But these are not normal times and with Setanta and ITV’s problems and the pressure on the BBC licence fee likely to leave Sky as the only broadcaster capable of purchasing the rights to air your organisation’s product, I feel that we can only expect broadcast income to fall for the majority of clubs in your structure. This will only lead to more clubs in your organisation finding themselves close to or falling into administration.

 

Any change to your rules here is obviously too late for my own club as the well documented problems of our parent company will already be judged by the rules you had in place at the time. But is it fair to penalise companies and the sporting clubs they act as custodian for when in "normal" times their outgoings would not so markedly outstrip their income? I ask you to consider creating exceptions in your rules to cope with this extraordinary problem. Clubs are not necessarily looking to outspend their opponents and nip in and out of administration to gain a commercial advantage. Instead I believe clubs, like every other business in the land are seeing reduced income from ticket sales as well as player disposal that they could not possibly have forecast whilst their banks are increasingly nervous to extend lines of credit to what in "normal" times might have been thought of as well run businesses.

 

2) Shouldn't any club in your structure be given free and unfettered access to an unbiased appeal against any of the judgements of the Football League?

 

I thank you for your time and look forward to your response in due course.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

SaintBletch

[OldNick]

Isnt there a sports tribunal we could go to, even if we sign up to what the FL are demanding, by signing up under protest because surely the FL's demand, if true, is itself surely wrong.

is this not a restriction of trade and so that is an angle to aim at.

[Mole]

Does FIFA govern the football league?

 

Surely we should go above Mawhinneys head if need be.

[John Smith]

I thought I'd take a different approach. As I am embarrassed that I couldn't be arsed to get passionate about this when the likes of Luton were being kicked to death by the Football League, I thought it would now be wrong to plead our special case. But I still think the FL has some changes to put in place. Will keep you appraised of any reply I receive.

 

Excellent mail.

[Junior Mullet]

is this not a restriction of trade and so that is an angle to aim at.

 

Possibly, although I suspect this is not the best thing to aim at. I still believe that the FL's interpretation and useage of their own rules was irrational and vexatious and our appeals should be based on that rather than possibly weaker arguments that vould dilute our main attack. I have said throughout that if the FL don't like the way we got around their rules, they should change their rules to stop it happening, yet it seems they're either not bright enough or too lazy to do that.

 

For me, the PLC going into admin was no different from an individual owner being declared insolvent. Yet we all know full well that Norwich, for example, would not be deducted 10 points if Delia were to declare herself insolvent - nor would I expect them to be deducted poiknts on that basis. The principal of companies being separate legal entities is enshrined in corporate law and provides a corner stone for companies operating the world over. It is sheer arrogance and vindictiveness that the FL should ignore this in favour of their own crass determination.

 

I am not sure of the jurisdiction or whether a decision from these guys is binding on the FL: *************The Court of Arbitration for Sport.************

 

I am too tired and messed up from my stag do to do any real research on the net, although they were who I was thinking of when I said above that we may have right to appeal the decision of the FL.

 

It would seem fair that there should be an independent appeals body to consider situations like ours, especially where the 'judges' to the first decision are so clearly biased. There is so much money and emotion involved that it would be completely justified for there to be an independent body

[OldNick]

Excellent mail.

very good and reasoned letter Bletch

[CB Fry]

It would seem fair that there should be an independent appeals body to consider situations like ours, especially where the 'judges' to the first decision are so clearly biased.

 

 

"Biased" what way?

 

Are we kidding ourselves that the Football League is now fundementally anti-Southampton?

 

We broke the rules, tried to riggle out of it with a **** and bull story, that **** and bull story was blown clean out of the water. Ten point deduction.

 

Where is this bias?

 

Come on.

[CB Fry]

For me, the PLC going into admin was no different from an individual owner being declared insolvent. Yet we all know full well that Norwich, for example, would not be deducted 10 points if Delia were to declare herself insolvent - nor would I expect them to be deducted poiknts on that basis. The principal of companies being separate legal entities is enshrined in corporate law and provides a corner stone for companies operating the world over. It is sheer arrogance and vindictiveness that the FL should ignore this in favour of their own crass determination.

 

 

If Delia launched a food range, or a clothing range, or a range of gold plated potato peelers and the failure of that caused her to declare herself insolvent then obviously Norwich City would not be implicated in that.

 

Our holding company is not a holding company with lots of other interests. It is the football club and went into admin because of football debt, not because they spent too much money on ride-on electric mowers for Jackson's farm.

 

This ranting on about our silly little made up "holding company" is just delusional.

[benjii]

"Biased" what way?

 

Are we kidding ourselves that the Football League is now fundementally anti-Southampton?

 

We broke the rules, tried to riggle out of it with a **** and bull story, that **** and bull story was blown clean out of the water. Ten point deduction.

 

Where is this bias?

 

Come on.

 

Well, some might argue that a panel composed of competitors' leaders is inherently biased.

 

As for **** and bull story... complete nonsense I'm afraid. Nothing we have said is untrue. It is all fact.

 

Did we deserve the punishment - probably (although I don't see why relegated clubs should be punished for the next season in general; it's illogical).

 

Did the FL have the ability to impose the punishment pursuant to the rules? No. Is it fair to make an ultra-vires sanction without allowing any recourse whatsoever? Obviously not.

 

If the Pinnacle acquisition is predicated on overturning the decision that is very worrying and IMO it shouldn't be a factor. However, I don't see why they should be forced to waive any rights.

 

If the FL can offer a reasonable explanation as to why Pinnacle should be forced to waive rights, then fine. So far they have failed to do so.

[Legod Third Coming]

Will the other 91? clubs in the Football League start an email campaign to Mawinney about the snake that tried to slither through the back door of its rules?

Ok say we win what are the repercussions of this....the FL will be taken to court by every club that has had a penalty imposed.

Everytime we come up in front of them in the future we will get slaughtered.

The FL makes up its own rules as it goes along everyone knows this and if you want to play in their league you HAVE to accept that.

 

Would you accept a state that operated this way?

 

If there are rules, you obey them.

 

If you are found guilty of breaking them, you have the right to appeal if you think you haven't.

 

If there are disagreement, there is a court for the arbitration of sport or a High Court or the Law Lords.

 

Your attitude is incredulous when you consider the livelihoods and incomes involved.

 

The league is NOTHING without its members.

 

What if Luton fans could have saved their club from being effectively expelled from the league?

 

This is not a fight about Southampton doing 'right or wrong' This is a fight about everyone's right to a fair trial and the application of the governing body's code of regulations.

 

What if we put SLH into adminstration BECAUSE we believed it was within our right and best for the club to avoid a penalty? And had the rules been written a different way we would not have done so? Is this a black and white case then?

[hythesaint]

Looks like it from here

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/League1Home/0,,10794,00.html

[CB Fry]

Looks like it from here

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/League1Home/0,,10794,00.html

 

 

What looks like what? It's just the homepage with no mention of anything of interest.

[OldNick]

What looks like what? It's just the homepage with no mention of anything of interest.

that's what i thought

[Give it to Ron]

Would you accept a state that operated this way?

 

If there are rules, you obey them.

 

If you are found guilty of breaking them, you have the right to appeal if you think you haven't.

 

If there are disagreement, there is a court for the arbitration of sport or a High Court or the Law Lords.

 

Your attitude is incredulous when you consider the livelihoods and incomes involved.

 

The league is NOTHING without its members.

 

What if Luton fans could have saved their club from being effectively expelled from the league?

 

This is not a fight about Southampton doing 'right or wrong' This is a fight about everyone's right to a fair trial and the application of the governing body's code of regulations.

 

What if we put SLH into adminstration BECAUSE we believed it was within our right and best for the club to avoid a penalty? And had the rules been written a different way we would not have done so? Is this a black and white case then?

 

Where have you been hiding all these years...have you not seen what happened at Leeds? Luton did try and take them on and got slaughtered.

Bournemouth were another example of a club that the FL treated pretty badly.

The last paragraph says it all for me....that is the reason why these rules are in existance to prevent that.

Nowhere here am I am saying I agree with them and believe we should be able to appeal where I differ is the fact that I can see why the FL say no.

Have you ever sat before any football league committee? I have 4 different ones in totally different leagues and ALL are a law to themselves and make decisions that suit.

I have been at managers meetings where the committe has decided to change laws there and then ...not at the AGM. Clubs that want to play in that league have to abide by that decision as they elected the members of the committee.

[Mole]

"Biased" what way?

 

Are we kidding ourselves that the Football League is now fundementally anti-Southampton?

 

We broke the rules, tried to riggle out of it with a **** and bull story, that **** and bull story was blown clean out of the water. Ten point deduction.

 

Where is this bias?

 

Come on.

 

I think it's reasonable to think Mawhinney would be anti Rupert Lowe. Are you aware of their political history?

[CB Fry]

I think it's reasonable to think Mawhinney would be anti Rupert Lowe. Are you aware of their political history?

 

 

I couldn't give a monkeys for your conspiracies and won't take a lesson in politics from a National Front div.

[Scummer]

Based on Tony Lynams latest comments, it's probably best not to be sending emails to the FL at the moment.

[Andyb1]

agreed.....

[hasper57saint]

I am a member of a 'Private members Club'. The Club is a Limited Company registered under Law at Companies House. The 'Law' is the 'Law of the Land'. The Club Rules are for the Members. The right of appeal is enshrined in the Club Rules. However, the Club 'writes the rules'. To break them is NOT against the 'Law'.The FL write the Rules for the 'members'. Parliament writes the 'LAWS' for the citizens of the UK. Can you see the difference Guys? I hope I have simplified it sufficiently for you.(PS I'm not being patronising but the more I read here the more I become concerned about a 'Campaign' against the FL and its Chairman)

[Gingeletiss]

I am a member of a 'Private members Club'. The Club is a Limited Company registered under Law at Companies House. The 'Law' is the 'Law of the Land'. The Club Rules are for the Members. The right of appeal is enshrined in the Club Rules. However, the Club 'writes the rules'. To break them is NOT against the 'Law'.The FL write the Rules for the 'members'. Parliament writes the 'LAWS' for the citizens of the UK. Can you see the difference Guys? I hope I have simplified it sufficiently for you.(PS I'm not being patronising but the more I read here the more I become concerned about a 'Campaign' against the FL and its Chairman)

 

What is the point of 'members only rules', if the body that oversees those rules, chooses to ignore them when a new member wishes to join the club.

How then is the new member expected to see where the line is drawn....this is about the rules being broken, not by Saints, but by the body that oversees the rules.

 

Nothing to do with law.

 

IMHO of course

[CB Fry]

What is the point of 'members only rules', if the body that oversees those rules, chooses to ignore them when a new member wishes to join the club.

How then is the new member expected to see where the line is drawn....this is about the rules being broken, not by Saints, but by the body that oversees the rules.

 

Nothing to do with law.

 

IMHO of course

 

 

Not sure why you're bringing Burton Albion into this.

[Bearsy]

if they (football leages) dont want us in the football leages y dont we apply to the prem or the scottish prem leages they wuld want us in them leages i wuld think????????

[Mole]

I couldn't give a monkeys for your conspiracies and won't take a lesson in politics from a National Front div.

 

You have an attitude problem CB Fry. For as long as you've posted you've always come accross as a jumped up teenager.

[hasper57saint]

Here we go again. This 'Forum' is for its members. (that's us) The Admistrators write the 'Rules'. If we (and many have) break those 'Rules' then the Admin team have every right to disbar us. Yes we can appeal but it will be the very same people hearing the appeal as the ones who have written the 'Rules'. What's diferent to this than the FL?

I'll get me coat!

[Smirking_Saint]

Do we even know that the FL are opposing the 10 points ??

 

Plus i think sending these email's are bad news, let TL and his lawyers sort his part and we can kick off afterwards.

 

Think this is bad news TBH.

[trousers]

Here we go again. This 'Forum' is for its members. (that's us) The Admistrators write the 'Rules'. If we (and many have) break those 'Rules' then the Admin team have every right to disbar us. Yes we can appeal but it will be the very same people hearing the appeal as the ones who have written the 'Rules'. What's diferent to this than the FL?

I'll get me coat!

 

I believe the difference is that the administrators of this forum do not tell people that they can't appeal against any decision against them before accepting their fiver.

[Thedelldays]

I believe the difference is that the administrators of this forum do not tell people that they can't appeal against any decision against them before accepting their fiver.

have the FL actually said we CANT..?

[Smirking_Saint]

have the FL actually said we CANT..?

 

My point.

 

A lot of clutching going on today.

[Beer Engine]

Can I urge people NOT to bombard the FL with emails of complaint ... the FL has behaved quite reasonably in all this

 

We need their goodwill more than they need Saints to survive ... so can we lay off please

[Smirking_Saint]

I say we email the FL apologising for the emails sent to them complaining about the so called -10 points issue.

[OldNick]

I expect that the e-mails went straight into the recycle bin by an works experience kid.

They are now waiting to be delected along with all the viagara and penis enlargement spam emails.

[Beer Engine]

I thought the FL was fair and reasonable.

 

TL knows that we've got no chance of overturning the appeal - I think Pinnacle are using the FL to buy time to resolve those minor but strangely persistent legal issues that seem to be getting in the way of completeion ...

[OldNick]

I thought the FL was fair and reasonable.

 

TL knows that we've got no chance of overturning the appeal - I think they're using the FL to buy time to resolve those minot persistent legal issues that seem to be getting in the way ...

you're a heretic

[Beer Engine]

you're a heretic

 

 

Blimey - does that make you the Bishop of Bath and Wells ...?

[OldNick]

Blimey - does that make you the Bishop of Bath and Wells ...?

No just bored and sick of this administration stuff. I had believed that 1 wa or other we would have known our future by now. We have to have someone in place by thursdays wage day.

[Beer Engine]

No just bored and sick of this administration stuff.

 

Ditto