Ask yourselves.........

[um pahars]

Then if that is the case let the courts decide - the FL from my understanding do not want to even give us our day in court eg signing away any right to appeal.

 

I'm sure the League will do exactly what they did with Leeds.

 

1. Give us the right to cease our membership of the League.

 

2. Offer us the chance to start in Division 4 as per their rules and we will have the right to appeal the points deduction.

 

3. Offer us the chance to start in Division 3, but accept the point deduction and forego any appeal.

 

 

As with Leeds, the League will compromise and allow us to stay in Division 3, but only if we compromise and drop our right of appeal.

[Saint Charlie]

we deserve the -10 but they simply DO NOT have the right to deny us a takeover on the grounds that we are going to appeal. Its disgusting and disgraceful.

 

Spot on.

[um pahars]

Indeed they do. However, in our case the basis for the decision was that the two entities were 'inextricably linked' and even that could not be readily determined at the time.

 

Everyone knew the two companies were inextricably linked, even thicko's like me pointed out we only had one business and it was the football team that was the root cause of our financial problems.

 

He just sent the forensic accountants in to prove what we were trying to say was poppy**** and to justify and safeguard the League's position.

 

It was Mawhinney's statement "there is an appeal mechanism and the club is free to use it" that indicates to me that this decision was more political than practical. He clearly expected us to follow that route.

 

Indeed there is an appeal mechanism and as I have said above, then if we don't want to compromise then the League does not have to compromise either and can start us in Division 4.

 

That said, I think an apeeal would have little if no chance anyway.

[Hopkins]

Anyone got the actual rules from the FL on administration and the actual places it states it must be the club that is in administration and not mentioning holding companies?

[St Marco]

We deserved it. Club and SLH same thing, SLH makes its money from the club. If club does bad then SLH does bad, they are the same.

As my boss said on friday basically we are trying to find away around it. By doing that we are trying to cheat. The people who run the club fooked up. That was then, lets not let it ruin our now or future by trying to believe we don't deserve simply because there are two entities to the club.

What worries me is that due to stupidity and daft morales we will not only lose the consortium we all want but be punished even further. Let us prove our points on the pitch.

[70's Mike]

never quite understood why we needed so many companies, rather than divisions

[LestWeForget]

But isn't the point that the FL are' date=' arguably illegally, denying our right to appeal? Rather than whether we are in the right or not? If we are in fact in the wrong, then surely the Football League would just allow us to appeal.[/quote']

 

No they are not... WE FAILED TO APPEAL in accordance with the rules...

 

12.3.6 Any Appeal must be in writing and be received by the League at its

registered office no later than 7 days after The League serves the Notice.

The Appeal must contain a statement setting out the grounds of appeal and

provide copies of any documentation upon which the Club intends to rely in

support of the Appeal.

[LestWeForget]

Anyone got the actual rules from the FL on administration and the actual places it states it must be the club that is in administration and not mentioning holding companies?

 

12.3.1 With effect from the 10th May 2004, if any Club shall: -

a have a manager, receiver or administrative receiver appointed in respect of

that Club or any part of its undertaking or assets;

b have an administration order made in respect of that Club;

c have a winding-up order made in respect of that Club;

d pass a resolution for the winding-up of that Club;

e enter into any arrangement with its creditors or some part of them in

respect of the payment of its debts or part of them as a company

voluntary arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986 or Scheme of

Arrangement under the Companies Act 1985; or

f have any proceeding or step taken or any court order in any

jurisdiction made which has a substantially similar effect to any of

the foregoing;

 

that Club shall be deducted 10 points.

[Hopkins]

Can someone explain these rules to me. Straight from the FL rules and regulations.

 

12.3.1 With effect from the 10th May 2004, if any Club shall: -

A have a manager, receiver or administrative receiver appointed in respect of

that Club or any part of its undertaking or assets;

b have an administration order made in respect of that Club;

c have a winding-up order made in respect of that Club;

d pass a resolution for the winding-up of that Club;

e enter into any arrangement with its creditors or some part of them in

respect of the payment of its debts or part of them as a company

voluntary arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986 or Scheme of

Arrangement under the Companies Act 1985; or

f have any proceeding or step taken or any court order in any

jurisdiction made which has a substantially similar effect to any of

the foregoing;

 

that Club shall be deducted 10 points.

 

A seems a bit worrying. Am I right in thinking SFC was an asset of SLH so therefore point A comes into place here and therefore we deserved this -10?

[LestWeForget]

Can someone explain these rules to me. Straight from the FL rules and regulations.

 

12.3.1 With effect from the 10th May 2004, if any Club shall: -

A have a manager, receiver or administrative receiver appointed in respect of

that Club or any part of its undertaking or assets;

b have an administration order made in respect of that Club;

c have a winding-up order made in respect of that Club;

d pass a resolution for the winding-up of that Club;

e enter into any arrangement with its creditors or some part of them in

respect of the payment of its debts or part of them as a company

voluntary arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986 or Scheme of

Arrangement under the Companies Act 1985; or

f have any proceeding or step taken or any court order in any

jurisdiction made which has a substantially similar effect to any of

the foregoing;

 

that Club shall be deducted 10 points.

 

A seems a bit worrying. Am I right in thinking SFC was an asset of SLH so therefore point A comes into place here and therefore we deserved this -10?

 

(f) actually...

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Anyone got the actual rules from the FL on administration and the actual places it states it must be the club that is in administration and not mentioning holding companies?

 

 

 

You can rest assured that SLH (& Mark Fry) have obtained/seen a legal opinion that the PLC structure Rupert designed meant will could avoid the FL's 'Sporting Sanction' regulations regarding administration , or at the very least we have an arguable case . Unfortunetly if you ask any two lawyers a question your likley to end up with three different answers .

[Whitey Grandad]

Indeed there is an appeal mechanism and as I have said above, then if we don't want to compromise then the League does not have to compromise either and can start us in Division 4.

 

That said, I think an apeeal would have little if no chance anyway.

I keep thinking back to the comments made at the time of administration to the effect that the club/SLH had queried with the League the situation regarding the separation of the two companies and had been assured that administration of SLH would not result in sanctions against the club. Might this be the basis for an appeal?

 

I do agree though that it is all likely to be a waste of time because the Board of the League has wide-reaching powers to do as it sees fit.

[um pahars]

I keep thinking back to the comments made at the time of administration to the effect that the club/SLH had queried with the League the situation regarding the separation of the two companies and had been assured that administration of SLH would not result in sanctions against the club. Might this be the basis for an appeal?

 

I do agree though that it is all likely to be a waste of time because the Board of the League has wide-reaching powers to do as it sees fit.

 

I don't think anyone came out wth anything as concrete as saying the Club had been assured and even if they did, then quite frankly I think it was the last desperate acts of a desperate regime!!!

[Sheff Saint]

I'm sure the League will do exactly what they did with Leeds.

 

1. Give us the right to cease our membership of the League.

 

2. Offer us the chance to start in Division 4 as per their rules and we will have the right to appeal the points deduction.

 

3. Offer us the chance to start in Division 3, but accept the point deduction and forego any appeal.

 

 

As with Leeds, the League will compromise and allow us to stay in Division 3, but only if we compromise and drop our right of appeal.

 

Just a quick question with this.

 

Why do the League relegate you? Is it because you've been bought by a new company? In that case i can see why this happened to Leeds. But will the same apply to Stockport and Darlington, assuming they are taken over and agree a CVA?

[um pahars]

Just a quick question with this.

 

Why do the League relegate you? Is it because you've been bought by a new company? In that case i can see why this happened to Leeds. But will the same apply to Stockport and Darlington, assuming they are taken over and agree a CVA?

 

I was also surprised when I read that the League had that option and that it was one of the options they put to Leeds (along with withdrawing from the League and also accepting the points deduction and staying in Div 3).

 

However, I think the League sought to compromise and keep the clubs in their respective divisions as long as they accept the points deductions. This came from the League when they explained the Arbitration Panel's decision which backed the League's stance:

 

 

In particular, the League not only accepted Leeds United New Co into membership, but allowed it to take its predecessor’s place in League 1, subject to a 15 point deduction to reflect the lack of a CVA.

It has been suggested that this 3rd August Agreement was signed under duress, that Leeds United had no option but to do so or face losing the Club forever.

In fact, as the judgment reflects, the Agreement as signed represented the culmination of a series of discussions and a meeting between representatives of Leeds United and The Football League, in which various options had been discussed to address the failure to secure

a CVA of the creditors of Leeds Old Co, including: -

 

• Cessation of membership;

• Commencing the following Season in League 2 under Regulation 11; and

• The 15 point deduction to apply in League 1.

 

 

It was Leeds United who chose the option of a points deduction in League 1 rather than commencing the following season in League 2.

 

As the Panel said, “to ensure Leeds stayed in League 1, [Leeds] was prepared to pay a price to achieve this”.