SSN reports no appeal on 10 points!

[Fan The Flames]

Theres got to be more to it than just the -10.

 

Northern ****s.

[saint lard]

ON SSN NOW....league refuse to change position on accepting Pinnacles' challenge on the -10 points ruling.

Pinnacle must not appeal the leagues decision so therefore cannot proceed with takeover until they concede on this matter.

[Cabrone]

It doesnt.....it doesnt actually say anything.

 

So i guess we wait for an update from Tony.

 

Please, please dont walk away because of this Tony.

 

Tony Lynham won't be making the call, it's his backer who will have to make his\her mind up.

 

I hope they go through with this as I still think we've got a decent shot at playoffs if we can all pull together.

[Flyer]

The football league are getting right on my t*ts they know an appeal would get the 10 points back for saints Derby got away with it. So they wont let nobody buy who would appeal, the football league muppets are a disgrace.

 

Derby "got away with it" because they were in admin before the -10 points rule was bought in.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Just ****ing buy the club and forget the ten points!! PLEASE!

[CB Fry]

I thought the forum geniuses were telling me that Mawhinney was "running scared" from our "legal professionals"

 

:rolleyes:

[Hopkins]

The CVA situation is something Pinnacle will have to clarify with the FL now. This is the real make or break of the deal IMO.

 

If the Football League don't want to admit they are wrong, they shall dock us -30 points because we will never be able to produce a CVA.

[kelkel31]

The 10 point thing should not make any difference to a serious bidder, everyone knew from day 1 that the FL were very unlikley to back down.

 

Pinnacle can't use this as an excuse.

 

it is not possible for southampton football club to receive a 10pt deduction. we are incapable of producing a CVA and therefore we either have no deduction or 25pts!

 

now lets restart the arguements using the real facts

[Professor]

Where does it say that we can't appeal?

 

It is the following sentence that implies that the FL will try to prevent an appeal:-

 

The Football League has the responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season with certainty as regards the competition they compete in.

 

That does not mean that Pinnacle have to accept the decision if they have legal advice to the contrary. It depends on the strength of that advice, and how weak the lawyers feel the FL's position might be. The doom and gloom on this thread isn't really warranted. Pinnacle have the legal opinions and without seeing those, fans can't really take any view about the risk of taking the FL on. The FL statement is not entirely accurate anyway as there can never be certainty at the start of the season as to whether clubs will incur points penalties, or appeal against them, as the season progresses.

[saint_ed]

it is not possible for southampton football club to receive a 10pt deduction. we are incapable of producing a CVA and therefore we either have no deduction or 25pts!

 

now lets restart the arguements using the real facts

 

And herein lies the crux of our problem. Someone is going to have to budge and unfortunately I just don't see this happening unless a compromise is reached. -10 deduction with no appeal is the most likely compromise, however I am yet to be convinced that pinnacle will agree to this.

[aintforever]

The problem is that Fry has been selling a club that might not start on -10 and so have a decent chance of promotion, now the price has to be reduced in line with the fact that 2 seasons in League 1 minimum is almost certain.

 

the question is, how much does the guaranteed -10 take off the price of the club?

[Latheal]

SSN said the FL just wanted it in writing that we wouldn't appeal. Why not just write the letter, take over the club, then change our mind and appeal? There would be absolutely nothing the FL could do about it. They cannot remove statutory rights. What they are asking for is illegal and no court in the land would uphold it.

[up and away]

The CVA situation is something Pinnacle will have to clarify with the FL now. This is the real make or break of the deal IMO.

 

If the Football League don't want to admit they are wrong, they shall dock us -30 points because we will never be able to produce a CVA.

 

I cannot see that as being a problem at all. We need to have an agreement of 75% of the value from creditors of SLH and we have fufilled our obligations. The FL has agreed in principle that in all essence SLH represents SFC, so should we show an agreed CVA for SLH there is no issue. I am disappointed we never got the right of appeal over the -10 ponts, even though I feel it was more than justified. It does seem unfair that we are not allowed the exact same rights of other clubs but at the end of the day it is hardly a shock and virtually nailed on what ever our protestations.

[CB Fry]

SSN said the FL just wanted it in writing that we wouldn't appeal. Why not just write the letter, take over the club, then change our mind and appeal? There would be absolutely nothing the FL could do about it. They cannot remove statutory rights. What they are asking for is illegal and no court in the land would uphold it.

 

 

Not really, people get made redundant every week in this country by signing "compromise agreements" with their employers.

 

Said employee agrees not to challenge or "appeal" if you like their dismissal, and employer agrees to pay x amount as compensation.

 

If you think the FL are saying "you must not appeal" in writing then you are daft. But they are saying "you can join the league on these conditions".

 

Not illegal in the slightest.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Anyone fancy going up to London and picketing the Football League? Would be a laugh.

[um pahars]

Give them what they want. Sign up to whatever the league want.

Take the deduction.

 

Then take them to the high court and challenge their right to interpret their rules rather than abide by specific rules.

 

Forget about arbitration, appeals etc. let the law decide. This needs doing and at some point somebody will bring the house of cards down.

 

We cannot take the League to court!!!!!!

 

We are bound by the pre existing arrangement with the FA (Rule K Arbitration) that disputes must be settled by arbitration.

 

Additionally we can't just sign up and then say we changed our minds:

 

 

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

 

As the Arbitration Panel stressed, ‘[t]his was a commercial bargain, at arms length between a powerful and rich Consortium of businessmen and a responsible professional Sports Governing Body’.

The Panel overwhelmingly concluded that Leeds United should be required to abide by the bargain that it struck with the League’s Board, including its waiver of any claims beyond the appeal to member clubs, and the arbitration claims were rejected on this basis.

 

As the Panel said: -

“We are satisfied that the Claimants’ case begins and ends with the

Compromise Agreement which clearly embodied the intention of both parties.

 

Taking the Agreement as a whole and in particular Clause 4 Leeds New Co agreed to the imposition of the 15 points and to release the League from the claims which have now been advanced and to waive any rights to do so.

 

Leeds New Co specifically covenanted not to bring the claims it has now sought to assert and there is no basis to allow it not to honour that covenant.”

[Latheal]

Not really, people get made redundant every week in this country by signing "compromise agreements" with their employers.

 

Said employee agrees not to challenge or "appeal" if you like their dismissal, and employer agrees to pay x amount as compensation.

 

If you think the FL are saying "you must not appeal" in writing then you are daft. But they are saying "you can join the league on these conditions".

 

Not illegal in the slightest.

 

What I'm saying is whether we have a legal document, written letter, handshake - its all irrelevant. The very notion of not being allowed an appeal is illegal and therefore cannot be enforced by the FL. The compensation argument you use is also guarded by statue law - there are statues in force that enforce the minimum you have. For example, if your employer offered you less than what you were entitled to by law with no right of appeal and you accepted this, do you honestly believe you could not appeal it? Of course you could, because the agreement itself is illegal...

 

I'm a bit rusty, but I did 4 years at Southampton Uni studying law and that was one of the main things they drummed into you - its why when you see the T&Cs on items you buy it always says "This does not affect your statutory rights". Statute rights are God in Law. If its written in law, you cannot have somebody else come along and change it on a whim, which is basically what the FL are doing. I'm not saying we would win or that it wouldn't damage our relationship with the FL, but the basic right to appeal should be there.

[CB Fry]

What I'm saying is whether we have a legal document, written letter, handshake - its all irrelevant. The very notion of not being allowed an appeal is illegal and therefore cannot be enforced by the FL. The compensation argument you use is also guarded by statue law - there are statues in force that enforce the minimum you have. For example, if your employer offered you less than what you were entitled to by law with no right of appeal and you accepted this, do you honestly believe you could not appeal it? Of course you could, because the agreement itself is illegal...

 

I'm a bit rusty, but I did 4 years at Southampton Uni studying law and that was one of the main things they drummed into you - its why when you see the T&Cs on items you buy it always says "This does not affect your statutory rights". Statute rights are God in Law. If its written in law, you cannot have somebody else come along and change it on a whim, which is basically what the FL are doing. I'm not saying we would win or that it wouldn't damage our relationship with the FL, but the basic right to appeal should be there.

 

But your point about employers offering less etc etc makes my point for me.

 

An employer forcing an employee to sign a compromise agreement for less than statutory redundancy is illegal and unreasonable. So obviously illegal and wouldn't stand up in court.

 

What the league are asking us to do is not unreasonable and definitely not illegal. It will be a compromise agreement.

 

 

And of course if you did have a compromise agreement you were happy with, it wouldn't stop you from going to court if you changed your mind. But you would probably lose.

 

Which is what Leeds did.

 

Southampton Football Club (lets call it Guantanamo FC because its diddums human rights have been so terribly violated) could do the same and would also lose. The league I am sure will put "your statutory rights will not be affected" on the contract, just like you get on crisp packets.

[Latheal]

What the league are asking us to do is not unreasonable and definitely not illegal. It will be a compromise agreement.

 

 

And of course if you did have a compromise agreement you were happy with, it wouldn't stop you from going to court if you changed your mind. But you would probably lose.

 

QUOTE]

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. The bit I have a probem with by taking away your right to appeal there is that's it nota compromise, its blackmail. If they were to say "don't appeal and that will be the end of the deductions", that's a compromise. Still think there are more points to come for any other rule they care to make up/enforce ect. I'm not saying we would win or lose, but I'm damned sure we would have a right to appeal anyway. Isn't this how Bosman started? Wasn't it around the time that the authorities all believed because it was sport, it was all dealt with in-house so to speak. Truth of the matter is, I believe,if we wanted to, we could. Totally agree with you that we would probably lose.

[CB Fry]

What the league are asking us to do is not unreasonable and definitely not illegal. It will be a compromise agreement.

 

 

And of course if you did have a compromise agreement you were happy with, it wouldn't stop you from going to court if you changed your mind. But you would probably lose.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. The bit I have a probem with by taking away your right to appeal there is that's it nota compromise, its blackmail. If they were to say "don't appeal and that will be the end of the deductions", that's a compromise. Still think there are more points to come for any other rule they care to make up/enforce ect. I'm not saying we would win or lose, but I'm damned sure we would have a right to appeal anyway. Isn't this how Bosman started? Wasn't it around the time that the authorities all believed because it was sport, it was all dealt with in-house so to speak. Truth of the matter is, I believe,if we wanted to, we could. Totally agree with you that we would probably lose.

 

 

Actually, I think we are in agreement (call it a compromise ).

 

Even if we sign this piece of paper, we can, in reality, in law appeal if we want to. Course we can.

 

That's why I don't get the hand wringing and "oh its a scandal" stuff we've seen on here all day.

[red&white56]

From the football league. Not exactly coming clean with what their decision actually is are they?

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/FLNewsDetail/0,,10794~1698158,00.html

 

Th FL say absolutely nothing about our position - what a fob-off !!! Reading this (if you didn't know the background) you wouldn't know there was a real point of contention between Pinnacle and the FL.

[benjii]

Clearly, as evidenced by Um's quotes, the arbitration panel decided that Leeds were a commercial entity with sufficient bargaining power to chose whether to sign a waiver or otherwise.

 

The English courts won't touch this if there is a pre-existing agreement to be bound by arbitration.

 

Unless Pinnacle are planning on taking this higher, (ECJ, or CAS - which I doubt as the timescale is too prohibitive and by the time it's heard it would be impossible to reverse the sporting sanction) then I applaud their stance and for highlighting the League's bizare thought process, but they need to let it go.

 

I suspect that the stumbling block is actually more to do with assurances being sought over how the FL is going to deal with the CVA rules.

[um pahars]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. The bit I have a probem with by taking away your right to appeal there is that's it nota compromise, its blackmail. If they were to say "don't appeal and that will be the end of the deductions", that's a compromise.

 

The League are probably doing exactly the same as they did with Leeds and offering us two options:

 

1. Withdraw from the League, or

 

2. Take up our position in Division 4 as per Regulation 11

 

And then the League's compromise is allowing us to stay in Division 3 as opposed to starting in Division 4, as long as we compromise and accept the points deduction and forego our right of appeal.

 

The League will be happy to compromise, as long as we meet them halfway and a line can be drawn under this sorry saga.

 

The Arbitration Panel highlighted the League's compromise:

 

 

 

 

A consortium of businessmen (including Mr Ken Bates) wanted to acquire the assets of the Club and made an offer to the Administrators which was accepted. Regulation 11 requires a new Member (‘Leeds NewCo’) to start the following season in a lower league (L2).

 

Leeds NewCo wanted to stay in L1. The League’s Board was receptive to the idea but on condition of a deduction of 15 points in the following season. Leeds NewCo agreed to this condition. (paras 4-21)

[Whitey Grandad]

The League are probably doing exactly the same as they did with Leeds and offering us two options:

 

1. Withdraw from the League, or

 

2. Take up our position in Division 4 as per Regulation 11

 

And then the League's compromise is allowing us to stay in Division 3 as opposed to starting in Division 4, as long as we compromise and accept the points deduction and forego our right of appeal.

 

The League will be happy to compromise, as long as we meet them halfway and a line can be drawn under this sorry saga.

 

The Arbitration Panel highlighted the League's compromise:

 

 

 

 

 

A consortium of businessmen (including Mr Ken Bates) wanted to acquire the assets of the Club and made an offer to the Administrators which was accepted. Regulation 11 requires a new Member (‘Leeds NewCo’) to start the following season in a lower league (L2).

 

Leeds NewCo wanted to stay in L1. The League’s Board was receptive to the idea but on condition of a deduction of 15 points in the following season. Leeds NewCo agreed to this condition. (paras 4-21)

This wouldn't be a new company, would it? SFC Ltd. would continues as the same legal entity.

[CB Fry]

The League are probably doing exactly the same as they did with Leeds and offering us two options:

 

1. Withdraw from the League, or

 

2. Take up our position in Division 4 as per Regulation 11

 

And then the League's compromise is allowing us to stay in Division 3 as opposed to starting in Division 4, as long as we compromise and accept the points deduction and forego our right of appeal.

 

The League will be happy to compromise, as long as we meet them halfway and a line can be drawn under this sorry saga.

 

The Arbitration Panel highlighted the League's compromise:

 

 

 

 

 

A consortium of businessmen (including Mr Ken Bates) wanted to acquire the assets of the Club and made an offer to the Administrators which was accepted. Regulation 11 requires a new Member (‘Leeds NewCo’) to start the following season in a lower league (L2).

 

Leeds NewCo wanted to stay in L1. The League’s Board was receptive to the idea but on condition of a deduction of 15 points in the following season. Leeds NewCo agreed to this condition. (paras 4-21)

 

 

I think this kind of thing needs to be permanently at the top of the forum. Getting a bit sick of people screaming IT'S ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!! when what is happening is clearly a bit of brinkmanship/negotiation between two parties, ultimately leading to a compromise agreement.

 

About as "illegal" as winding up a business in order to shake off debts you can't afford to pay and then starting again a few weeks later.

 

 

 

Maybe we need to start a brand new sub forum on Human Rights and Common Law now we have so much interest in it.

 

I'll get on the phone to Shami Chakrabati to officially open it if the mods will do the honours.

[FarehamRed]

The League are probably doing exactly the same as they did with Leeds and offering us two options:

 

1. Withdraw from the League, or

 

2. Take up our position in Division 4 as per Regulation 11

 

And then the League's compromise is allowing us to stay in Division 3 as opposed to starting in Division 4, as long as we compromise and accept the points deduction and forego our right of appeal.

 

The League will be happy to compromise, as long as we meet them halfway and a line can be drawn under this sorry saga.

 

The Arbitration Panel highlighted the League's compromise:

 

 

 

 

A consortium of businessmen (including Mr Ken Bates) wanted to acquire the assets of the Club and made an offer to the Administrators which was accepted. Regulation 11 requires a new Member (‘Leeds NewCo’) to start the following season in a lower league (L2).

 

Leeds NewCo wanted to stay in L1. The League’s Board was receptive to the idea but on condition of a deduction of 15 points in the following season. Leeds NewCo agreed to this condition. (paras 4-21)

 

But (at the risk of going round in circles), Southampton Football Club are not in administration. It's just a change in the ownership of SFC from SLH to (NewCoSaints). NewCoSaints ane not buying the assetts of the football club, they're buying the whole club. If that's the case, than I can't see the comparson. (???)

[um pahars]

This wouldn't be a new company, would it? SFC Ltd. would continues as the same legal entity.

 

I would agree that on the face of it, it would appear that SFC Ltd is not going under and a NewCo being formed, instead it's just a "transfer of ownership", but once again given past precendents I believe the League would have no problem in stating substance over form, and using their discretion and authority to rule in a similar manner.