eelpie Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 The way I read the situation is that the money being paid is for SFC but Fry will use it to pay off the Stadium & Bank etc which are in fact the debts of SLH. No wonder every one including the football League are confused. That is how I see the contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin C Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 it seems he is a good guy or very good at PR but to be hinest either would be great for SFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torrent Of Abuse Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Yes, so I don't understand why he doesn't start his own threads Probably to avoid someone saying "Why isn't he sorting out the deal instead of starting threads on here?" You know what this forum is like sometimes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Still has another week of holiday in the Far East and sincerely hopes that everything is at last resolved by my return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Probably to avoid someone saying "Why isn't he sorting out the deal instead of starting threads on here?" You know what this forum is like sometimes... What like playing golf last week-end instead of sorting out "minor wrinkles". Never mind, all work and no play and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefuriousb Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 The way I read the situation is that the money being paid is for SFC but Fry will use it to pay off the Stadium & Bank etc which are in fact the debts of SLH. No wonder every one including the football League are confused. I dont think we are really aware of the full problem with regard to the reason the football league are not rubber stamping the deal but IMHO it is to do with a lot more than the -10 points. Hopefully it can be sorted on Monday but I wont hold my breath. As I understood it, and that is all it is, the football club debt was the overdraft with barclays and St Mary's Stadium Ltd had a mortgage with Aviva. It would seem that the administrator has sold the assets (football club, training ground and St Mary's) as "going concerns", leaving behind SLH as a shell with no assets. SLH which is in adminstration is therefore to be liquidated. With the club and stadium sold as going concerns there is no CVA - it is this that may be the sticking point. Whether this is clever and brilliant, or just too damn clever by half appears to have caused Friday's shenanagans (??) The league decided that SLH and SFC were the same thing, hence the points deduction. So for SFC to "come out of administration" and to avoid further penalty, the league are asking where the CVA is? This not only would appear to muddy the waters, but is also brings into question of the validity of the point deduction as this wouldl show that there was a distinction between SLH and SFC. As such, the league may be trying to ensure that the original -10 is not challenged, and just accepted? Legally, it would appear, we would get the points back, but morally should we really be challenging? You have to remember SLH, including its assets, have been poorly run over the passed 5 years since relegation. Otherwise, we would not be in this position in the first instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Off course not .............. My hope is that Pinnacle can get it sorted, but merely pointing out that it might not be that easy. I really cant see that SLH & SFC are seperate idenities which probably means the -10 is a stick on and so there must be other "LEGAL" problems which may prove difficult to overcome. Hope I am wrong and Pinnacle seal it on Monday. Try this....fact...Pinnacle haven't bought SLH, they have bought SFC, now join the dots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintalan Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Try this....fact...Pinnacle haven't bought SLH, they have bought SFC, now join the dots. Try this....fact...Pinnacle haven't tried to buy SLH, they are trying to buy SFC, now join the dots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Try this....fact...Pinnacle haven't tried to buy SLH, they are trying to buy SFC, now join the dots How much (roughly) are they paying? that might be an important factor. If they paid anywhere near what SLH owe,well then it might be a different case to the FL than paying say 30%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarehamRed Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Legally, it would appear, we would get the points back, but morally should we really be challenging? You have to remember SLH, including its assets, have been poorly run over the passed 5 years since relegation. Otherwise, we would not be in this position in the first instance. I understand what you're saying, but let me draw a picture: You are the referee for the 3rd Round of the FA Cup; Man Utd v Bury. Man Utd are all over them for 89 minutes, but miss chance after chance. Bury cling on by the skin of their teeth. 90th minute, Bury break away, and their striker is fouled in the penalty area. Morally, Man Utd deserve to win the game. According to the rules, Bury should have a penalty. Do you award the penalty? Of course you do - because that's what the rules say. Same principal applies to Saints and the FL. Saints have obayed the rules, as the FC is not in administration, so the -10 should not apply. Simple as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Same principal applies to Saints and the FL. Saints have obayed the rules, as the FC is not in administration, so the -10 should not apply. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 The way I read the situation is that the money being paid is for SFC but Fry will use it to pay off the Stadium & Bank etc which are in fact the debts of SLH. No wonder every one including the football League are confused. That is how I see the contradiction. how is this a contradiction....? Southampton Football Club is an Asset of Southampton Leisure Holdings, so they sell this Asset to raise funds to pay for their debts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 how is this a contradiction....? Southampton Football Club is an Asset of Southampton Leisure Holdings, so they sell this Asset to raise funds to pay for their debts... That is why the FL (not me) see both as the same inextricably linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintstr1 Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 how is this a contradiction....? Southampton Football Club is an Asset of Southampton Leisure Holdings, so they sell this Asset to raise funds to pay for their debts... We are saying in one breath that SFC and SLH are completely seperate and therefore we should not be -10, SLH is in Administration not SFC. And the next breath Fry is Selling SFC for 15million or whatever to pay off the debts of SLH who are in Administration. Surely that is a contradiction and proves the two are in fact one of the same, so how can we legally argue the -10 deduction. We should except it and get on with it IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I really cannot believe that Pinnacle were only intent on buying the club without the -10 points.It has been well known for that the deduction might apply,even after an appeal. The CVA issue remains of concern though and how the FL interpret this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I really cannot believe that Pinnacle were only intent on buying the club without the -10 points.It has been well known for that the deduction might apply,even after an appeal. Wrong The CVA issue remains of concern though and how the FL interpret this. Right That is my take on it....this is not about -10 this is about a bigger deduction of points for not having a CVA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintstr1 Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 That is my take on it....this is not about -10 this is about a bigger deduction of points for not having a CVA. Please explain exactly what the CVA is and why we should have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Billy Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I feel it is because that we have made use of a loophole, perhaps not 100% ethical, but a loophole nonetheless which can be legally exploited and which was overlooked by the FL. The FL know that they cannot fight this legally, but if they allow us to exploit it and sfc have the -10 overturned the FL will have all sorts of flak come down on them from a great height from other clubs that could have used this flaw to their benefit. Plus other clubs ie Brentford who deem it as cheating. As I see it, a compromise is the only solution and then the FL will have to review and change their rules and regs. God knows what the compromise would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 As I see it, a compromise is the only solution and then the FL will have to review and change their rules and regs. God knows what the compromise would be. I would expect to see something along the lines: ...special cicrumstances ...the 10 point deduction stands ...rules will be clarified to avoid future uncertainty and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I'd love to see Mawhinney giving a squirming press conference to announce the 10 point deduction has been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I would expect to see something along the lines: ...special cicrumstances ...the 10 point deduction stands ...rules will be clarified to avoid future uncertainty and so on. If that alone is the outcome,then do we really have reason to complain ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 A CVA is basically where the company in 'administration' agrees to pay its debts and has satisfied the requirements of its creditors. Now here’s the tricky bit in our situation, it is only possible to issue a CVA to a company in administration - SLH is in administration and SFC isn't. Pinnacle haven't bid for SLH, instead they've bid for the assets instead – these are not in administration so do not require a CVA. As SLH is being wound up, it also will not be able to produce a CVA to satisfy the FL's requirements. Take a look at this: http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2195698/leeds-enters-league-without-cva I think our outcome will be similar to this. As the FL held an 'emergency' meeting over Leeds status too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I'd love to see Mawhinney giving a squirming press conference to announce the 10 point deduction has been removed. So would I but don't hold your breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monosaint Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 The fact that the FL have called an emergency meeting is a positive one in my view. If you think about it, they probably meet on set days in the month. My guess is that it is normal procedure to call an emergency meeting to discuss specific cases and that is the "Emergency" here. They will know our situation and are actively pursuing a resolution. Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintstr1 Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 A CVA is basically where the company in 'administration' agrees to pay its debts and has satisfied the requirements of its creditors. Now here’s the tricky bit in our situation, it is only possible to issue a CVA to a company in administration - SLH is in administration and SFC isn't. Pinnacle haven't bid for SLH, instead they've bid for the assets instead – these are not in administration so do not require a CVA. As SLH is being wound up, it also will not be able to produce a CVA to satisfy the FL's requirements. Take a look at this: http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2195698/leeds-enters-league-without-cva I think our outcome will be similar to this. As the FL held an 'emergency' meeting over Leeds status too. Thanks , So basically we are going to get hit with another -15, ( -25 in total ) and every one will walk away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Thanks , So basically we are going to get hit with another -15, ( -25 in total ) and every one will walk away. I really really hope not, but it's been my fear since we went into admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burger Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Thanks , So basically we are going to get hit with another -15, ( -25 in total ) and every one will walk away. that is my fear, as posted on Swiss thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 A CVA is basically where the company in 'administration' agrees to pay its debts and has satisfied the requirements of its creditors. Now here’s the tricky bit in our situation, it is only possible to issue a CVA to a company in administration - SLH is in administration and SFC isn't. Pinnacle haven't bid for SLH, instead they've bid for the assets instead – these are not in administration so do not require a CVA. As SLH is being wound up, it also will not be able to produce a CVA to satisfy the FL's requirements. Take a look at this: http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2195698/leeds-enters-league-without-cva I think our outcome will be similar to this. As the FL held an 'emergency' meeting over Leeds status too. A literal interpretation could be that SLH isn't a football club looking to play in League 1 whereas SFC is. Since SFC isn't in administration it doesn't need a CVA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Lynam Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Good morning all Just a very short message to wish all you fathers out there a Happy Fathers Day. In the knowledge that everything is being taken care of in a professional and proper fashion, leave that to us and go and spend some time with your families. Best wishes Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelkel31 Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 i really think this is now the case, its more about the extra 15 points than the original 10. nobody will buy the club if they now there is no way of avoiding the further 15 points, the side bar to this is if we do avoid the extra points for not being able to produce the CVA as required by the league, it obviously brings into question the original 10 points that pinnacle never intended to question. result is the FL has ****ed up, pinnacle never intended to have even a discussion about this until the FL asked for the CVA which is quite clearly not a part of the deal that has been brokered in good faith! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Billy Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Good morning all Just a very short message to wish all you fathers out there a Happy Fathers Day. In the knowledge that everything is being taken care of in a professional and proper fashion, leave that to us and go and spend some time with your families. Best wishes Tony Cheers Tony, And to you, if you are a father. Thanks for spending a little time just to calm our nerves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonToo Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 The FL's priorities (according to the Leeds article) are 1. The club continuing to exist 2. The payment of football creditors in full 3. The best possible return for other creditors Assuming that (2) has been satisfied and Fry has achieved (3) then the only problem for the FL is to work out how a CVA can be given when SFC is not in adminstration. And if SFC is not in adminstration then the 10 point penalty does not apply. I suppose the FL could then put the other hat on and argue that SFC is a different entity from SLH and therefore should start in the Blue Square but that would then invoke point (1) and round and round we go. Let the FL sweat this one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Good morning all Just a very short message to wish all you fathers out there a Happy Fathers Day. In the knowledge that everything is being taken care of in a professional and proper fashion, leave that to us and go and spend some time with your families. Best wishes Tony Thank you good sir.....unlike some on here, I have the utmost confidence in you and your team. Should you fail, then it won't be for the lack of trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 COYRs...Monday sorted and Tuesday .. will be onwards and upwards....Off to church for more prayers...British Legion that is...whip round for more funds just in case...up to £8.99p......£6 more than Jacko and his rag tag groupies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I understand what you're saying, but let me draw a picture: You are the referee for the 3rd Round of the FA Cup; Man Utd v Bury. Man Utd are all over them for 89 minutes, but miss chance after chance. Bury cling on by the skin of their teeth. 90th minute, Bury break away, and their striker is fouled in the penalty area. Morally, Man Utd deserve to win the game. According to the rules, Bury should have a penalty. Do you award the penalty? Of course you do - because that's what the rules say. Same principal applies to Saints and the FL. Saints have obayed the rules, as the FC is not in administration, so the -10 should not apply. Simple as. Well illustrated FarehamRed, There are too many people on here suggesting 'morally' we should except the -10 points and move on. Morals is neither here nor there in this instance. It's about rules, and if for whatever reason we haven't broken the letter of the Law we shouldn't be punished. Thats what a rule book is for. If it were about morals we could all sit around in a big circle holding hands and search are conscience over every dodgy offside decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I feel it is because that we have made use of a loophole, perhaps not 100% ethical, but a loophole nonetheless which can be legally exploited and which was overlooked by the FL. The FL know that they cannot fight this legally, but if they allow us to exploit it and sfc have the -10 overturned the FL will have all sorts of flak come down on them from a great height from other clubs that could have used this flaw to their benefit. Plus other clubs ie Brentford who deem it as cheating. As I see it, a compromise is the only solution and then the FL will have to review and change their rules and regs. God knows what the compromise would be. The FL don't compromise. They move the goalposts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 The FL's priorities (according to the Leeds article) are 1. The club continuing to exist 2. The payment of football creditors in full 3. The best possible return for other creditors Assuming that (2) has been satisfied and Fry has achieved (3) then the only problem for the FL is to work out how a CVA can be given when SFC is not in adminstration. And if SFC is not in adminstration then the 10 point penalty does not apply. I suppose the FL could then put the other hat on and argue that SFC is a different entity from SLH and therefore should start in the Blue Square but that would then invoke point (1) and round and round we go. Let the FL sweat this one out. Agreed 100%, but if the FL did put the other hat on and say you should start in the Blue Square then surely they would have to apply that rule to every club that is taken over, wether in admin or not, and none have so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 The FL don't compromise. They move the goalposts. exactly if we win they will find something else it does not pay to upset a "blazier" at any level of football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trumush Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Good morning all Just a very short message to wish all you fathers out there a Happy Fathers Day. In the knowledge that everything is being taken care of in a professional and proper fashion, leave that to us and go and spend some time with your families. Best wishes Tony Cheers Tony My 3 are taking their old dad out for a few beers very soon.The first one is dedicated to you and Le Tiss. Onwards and upwards!!! Keep the faith people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alejam Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I understand that the Football League will be reviewing the position on Monday in light of what we have discussed in private, so whilst it is perhaps easier to say, be patient, and don't "blame" the Football League nor Administrators, we all need to work together to achieve a successful outcome for all concerned. I clearly only care about one thing, putting the right people in charge of the Club. But we are all professionals and need to maintain our professionalism in order that this matter is resolved in a timely fashion - and it will be. I cannot work out why TL added this in his post yesterday? Do the FL have an issue with someone, who they want to put on the board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I am sure that Tony and his colleagues will come through for us, they have put in so much work and will just be trying to ensure that everything concerning the deal is best for Saints before completing it. Have faith! They want what is best for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeeBee Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Thanks Tony. If you are a father, then Happy Father's Day, if you are not, then thanks anyway for your encouraging words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Good morning all Just a very short message to wish all you fathers out there a Happy Fathers Day. In the knowledge that everything is being taken care of in a professional and proper fashion, leave that to us and go and spend some time with your families. Best wishes Tony Yes we want you to conclude the deal to buy Saints asap but dont forget your own family as well. Regards Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Good morning all Just a very short message to wish all you fathers out there a Happy Fathers Day. In the knowledge that everything is being taken care of in a professional and proper fashion, leave that to us and go and spend some time with your families. Best wishes Tony Why no memberships for next season? This is daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 The FL's priorities (according to the Leeds article) are 1. The club continuing to exist The Football League Board aren't out to screw nasty Southampton, instead they are trying to treat us as fairly as possible with reference to how they have treated other clubs in the past. I personally think the whole insolvency policy needs some serious attention, but as we stand here today the League are just trying to be fair and consistent with us and with the other teams under their watch. They have the discretion and authority in regard to their overriding responsibility to protect the integrity of the League and its competitions, in the interests of all member clubs. The Football League will doing their part to ensure we survive and honour our fixtures next season, it is not in their interests not to, but that does not mean they will have to be consistent and tough with us where it is appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_mears Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I understand that the Football League will be reviewing the position on Monday in light of what we have discussed in private, so whilst it is perhaps easier to say, be patient, and don't "blame" the Football League nor Administrators, we all need to work together to achieve a successful outcome for all concerned. I clearly only care about one thing, putting the right people in charge of the Club. But we are all professionals and need to maintain our professionalism in order that this matter is resolved in a timely fashion - and it will be. I cannot work out why TL added this in his post yesterday? Do the FL have an issue with someone, who they want to put on the board? I read that Marc Jackson would be having Dave JOnes remain and bring in Andrew Cowen again with Mike Richards being in the boardroom as well. Clearly a very disturbing situation as it would be Lowe/Askham set up all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I read that Marc Jackson would be having Dave JOnes remain and bring in Andrew Cowen again with Mike Richards being in the boardroom as well. Clearly a very disturbing situation as it would be Lowe/Askham set up all over again. Where did you read this??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red&white56 Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Tony is posting them in the huge many page takeover threads. As they may get lost in them for many people I think its better that they have their own thread. Thanks Matthew Le God I've stopped looking through some of the threads - they are so large and many seem to degenerate into pages of *****ing amongst the posters - I can't be bothered to scroll through all that stuff looking for real news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamLeGod Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Can we please not get all Sheffield United about the points deduction? If I have to hear that absolute **** Kevin McCabe banging on about Tevez and West Ham once more I will seriously be close to puncturing my own ear drums! Can we please just get a decision and move on. We need to focus on the future of the club so that we move forward and get us back to where we should be, certainly not league 1! Please let us not be going on about the points deduction in 3/4 years time if it is upheld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 i read that marc jackson would be having dave jones remain and bring in andrew cowen again with mike richards being in the boardroom as well. Clearly a very disturbing situation as it would be lowe/askham set up all over again. where Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now