Statement from administrator

[Whitey Grandad]

What I cannot understand is the League's comment that it:

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

Surely no one is disputing that we start next season in league 1?

(and it should say 'the competition in which they compete')

[Legod Third Coming]

Eh?

 

So just to confirm any club can run up any debts they like, plead poverty and start again.

 

Surely the whole point of the 10 point rule is to stop clubs running up debt they can't manage? But you can't have rules without some sanctions. Come on.

 

Normally sensible people on this forum (yes, you ) have gone quite mad.

 

I agree, if clubs running up huge debts which they cannot service were the issue. It isn't though, it has become an absolute necessity in order to compete. Even those clubs who apear solvent - like Wigan or Hull - are actually hugely indebted to individuals.

 

The league is unsustainable because finances are scewed across the board.

 

The FA lose Setanta and imediately simply put their rights back up for sale...

 

er what about the hundreds of thousands who have PAID for the rights to watch those games???

 

They care not one iota.

 

Football is eating itself and noone cares.

 

If ever there were a need for a rethink it's now. The league should not be crippling struggling clubs with sanctions but asking WHY so many clubs are struggling. For every one who admits they're in trouble, ten are just burying the issue and hoping for the best...

 

A year later and Coventry would never have found SISU. ALL the potential funding for clubs has dried up quicker than an Iranian wadi.

[um pahars]

What the FL is doing verges on blackmail. Pinnacle and the club are in a perilous position and the FL are taking full advantage, it is an abuse of power/undue influence by the FL.

 

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)

 

 

 

 

The Arbitration Panel were also clear that the League had the discretion and authority to act (and our position not materially different from the Leeds episode):

 

 

“by virtue of Article 41, Article 4 and Article 6 the Board had all the requisite authority to exercise its powers and discretion to impose a Condition of a 15 point deduction.”

 

The Panel therefore held that:-

 

“the assertion that the Board lacked the power to impose the Condition is unsustainable.”

 

The Panel also rejected as “unsustainable” Leeds’ allegation that the decision was unfair and/or unreasonable. It held that Leeds United: -

 

“would have failed to establish that the Board’s decision (or the League’s) to include the points Condition was a decision that no rational decision maker in their position could make.”

 

“As to the amount of points deducted it carefully carried out a balancing exercise between 0 to 20 and arrived at a decision that, in all the circumstances of this particular case (which we do not need to recite) was well within the range of decision reasonably open to it to make.”

 

 

Pinnacle should accept the terms and move on. They can then challenge the legality of what the FL are in effect forcing on them, ie waiver of rights of appeal.

 

It seems to me that if this is illegal in law then any agreement to waiver the right of appeal would not be legally enforceable by the FL and the club could then pursue their appeal.

 

And hopefully for the last time, the only redress we have is via arbitration, due to the FA's Rule K.

 

Additionally, the Arbitration Panel have already set a precedent by clearly stating that the waiver Leeds signed was enforceable.

[CB Fry]

What I cannot understand is the League's comment that it:

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

Surely no one is disputing that we start next season in league 1?

(and it should say 'the competition in which they compete')

 

 

Have a look at some of Um Pahars contributions on various threads tonight.

 

Chances are the League have opened their negotiations by starting us off in League 2 instead with the compromise being L1 minus ten, as they did with Leeds.

[Sheff Saint]

Eh?

 

So just to confirm any club can run up any debts they like, plead poverty and start again.

 

Surely the whole point of the 10 point rule is to stop clubs running up debt they can't manage? But you can't have rules without some sanctions. Come on.

 

Normally sensible people on this forum (yes, you ) have gone quite mad.

 

But where did our debt come from? Sure, it was Barclays that pulled the plug but if we didn;t have the stadium debt, chances are the football debt wouldn't be nearly as bad.

 

So should we have not got the stadium? Sure we are at an advantage over, say, Oldham, but only if we fill it. And we might, Oldham won't cos history tells us they wouldn't. When we bought SMS we had been in the top flight for 25 years. You don't get more established. It was hardly spending willy nilly.

 

Sure we could have curtailed our spending in later years, but we'd not have the probs then if it wasn't for the stadium.

 

I'm being simplistic and i do recognise what you are saying.

 

However i do think the rules are, in any economic climate, no where near subtle enough.

 

And by the by, it may be the FL's party and they can invite who they want to play, but given the overall rule by the FA and in turn by Uefa and Fifa i'm not sure they can quite tell us to find another league. Again that is far too simplistic.

[um pahars]

What I cannot understand is the League's comment that it:

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

Surely no one is disputing that we start next season in league 1?

(and it should say 'the competition in which they compete')

 

I wouldn't rule that out as what was clear from the Leeds affair was that Leeds could well have had to start in League 2 (Division 4) if the League not used their discretion and compromised.

 

I reckon the League are saying you're in League 2 unless you want to meet us halfway!!!!

[CB Fry]

I agree, if clubs running up huge debts which they cannot service were the issue. It isn't though, it has become an absolute necessity in order to compete. Even those clubs who apear solvent - like Wigan or Hull - are actually hugely indebted to individuals.

 

The league is unsustainable because finances are scewed across the board.

 

The FA lose Setanta and imediately simply put their rights back up for sale...

 

er what about the hundreds of thousands who have PAID for the rights to watch those games???

 

They care not one iota.

 

Football is eating itself and noone cares.

 

If ever there were a need for a rethink it's now. The league should not be crippling struggling clubs with sanctions but asking WHY so many clubs are struggling. For every one who admits they're in trouble, ten are just burying the issue and hoping for the best...

 

A year later and Coventry would never have found SISU. ALL the potential funding for clubs has dried up quicker than an Iranian wadi.

 

 

Yeah, fair enough. None of that means we shouldn't be deducted ten points though.

 

It's a difficult one for anyone to put a lid on, and being the FL are being slaughtered on here for issuing and sticking to a perfectly reasonable punishment no-one is ever going to thank them because fans will moan like hell whatever.

[Whitey Grandad]

I wouldn't rule that out as what was clear from the Leeds affair was that Leeds could well have had to start in League 2 (Division 4) if the League not used their discretion and compromised.

 

I reckon the League are saying you're in League 2 unless you want to meet us halfway!!!!

You could well be right. As I asked elsewhere, Leeds was a new company whereas SFC Ltd. would stay unchanged. Of course, the League make up the rules as they go along so they might well argue that what we would be doing would amount to 'substantially the same thing'.

[Legod Third Coming]

Yeah, fair enough. None of that means we shouldn't be deducted ten points though.

 

It's a difficult one for anyone to put a lid on, and being the FL are being slaughtered on here for issuing and sticking to a perfectly reasonable punishment no-one is ever going to thank them because fans will moan like hell whatever.

 

I think it's more the right of appeal which the more moderate voices object to being removed.

 

I see where the league are coming from with regards to the choice which Steve outlines above - drop down or take it on the chin.

 

But I despair that when well-run clubs like Norwich, Charlton and we are up the creek, no-one raises an eyelid and starts the process of wondering why.

 

I also think Moorewhiney is an absolute c o c k which doesn't help. He seems to revel in the politics but is a hopeless salesman for his product...

[Sheff Saint]

Have a look at some of Um Pahars contributions on various threads tonight.

 

Chances are the League have opened their negotiations by starting us off in League 2 instead with the compromise being L1 minus ten, as they did with Leeds.

 

And this worries me and i also think is why there is a delay.

 

Cos if they are saying this to us, they should be saying it to Stockport and Darlington too.

 

And if they are saying it to them they should say what they said to Bournemouth and Rotherham and Luton and Leeds.

 

And that seems to be that you will play in a division lower or start with -17.

 

And if they say that to them, they have to come back to us and say you must start with -27. And that might be why Pinnacle are panicking. Just a thought.

 

And it might be why the League have realised years of made up rules on the hoof have caught up with them. After all, the main driver for this -17 points was to screw Leeds over after they screwed the FL over with the -10 points.

 

Trouble is we are the first one's to be relegated before the -10 mattered and still face this -17 point rule. And whether the -10 is fair or not, no way is -27 fair. But if they give it to Stockport and Darlington, surely they have to give it to us?

[um pahars]

And this worries me and i also think is why there is a delay.

 

Cos if they are saying this to us, they should be saying it to Stockport and Darlington too.

 

And if they are saying it to them they should say what they said to Bournemouth and Rotherham and Luton and Leeds.

 

They certainly said it to Leeds, so maybe it is a line they say to all of these clubs and maybe they have all just taken it on the chin.

 

If you look at the Leeds case, then the League certainly showed some discretion in allowing Leeds to stay in Division 1 (how much of a compromise that is is a matter of judgement).

[Whitey Grandad]

They certainly said it to Leeds, so maybe it is a line they say to all of these clubs and maybe they have all just taken it on the chin.

 

If you look at the Leeds case, then the League certainly showed some discretion in allowing Leeds to stay in Division 1 (how much of a compromise that is is a matter of judgement).

This link from another thread say that Rotherham, Bournemouth & Luton all had the same sort of deal:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8113850.stm

[NickG]

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)

 

 

 

 

The Arbitration Panel were also clear that the League had the discretion and authority to act (and our position not materially different from the Leeds episode):

 

 

“by virtue of Article 41, Article 4 and Article 6 the Board had all the requisite authority to exercise its powers and discretion to impose a Condition of a 15 point deduction.”

 

The Panel therefore held that:-

 

“the assertion that the Board lacked the power to impose the Condition is unsustainable.”

 

The Panel also rejected as “unsustainable” Leeds’ allegation that the decision was unfair and/or unreasonable. It held that Leeds United: -

 

“would have failed to establish that the Board’s decision (or the League’s) to include the points Condition was a decision that no rational decision maker in their position could make.”

 

“As to the amount of points deducted it carefully carried out a balancing exercise between 0 to 20 and arrived at a decision that, in all the circumstances of this particular case (which we do not need to recite) was well within the range of decision reasonably open to it to make.”

 

 

 

 

And hopefully for the last time, the only redress we have is via arbitration, due to the FA's Rule K.

 

Additionally, the Arbitration Panel have already set a precedent by clearly stating that the waiver Leeds signed was enforceable.

 

its much simpler than that.

most processes in law or regulations, or even within a company have a right of appeal.

The FL said we could appeal.

Now they are using the change of licensing as a heavy handed way to remove that right.

[SaintBobby]

But where did our debt come from? Sure, it was Barclays that pulled the plug but if we didn;t have the stadium debt, chances are the football debt wouldn't be nearly as bad.

 

So should we have not got the stadium? Sure we are at an advantage over, say, Oldham, but only if we fill it. And we might, Oldham won't cos history tells us they wouldn't. When we bought SMS we had been in the top flight for 25 years. You don't get more established. It was hardly spending willy nilly.

 

Sure we could have curtailed our spending in later years, but we'd not have the probs then if it wasn't for the stadium.

 

I'm being simplistic and i do recognise what you are saying.

 

However i do think the rules are, in any economic climate, no where near subtle enough.

 

And by the by, it may be the FL's party and they can invite who they want to play, but given the overall rule by the FA and in turn by Uefa and Fifa i'm not sure they can quite tell us to find another league. Again that is far too simplistic.

 

Is this actually true? Are there no legal limits on their discretion?

[NickG]

Have a look at some of Um Pahars contributions on various threads tonight.

 

Chances are the League have opened their negotiations by starting us off in League 2 instead with the compromise being L1 minus ten, as they did with Leeds.

 

on what basis? Think you are filling in gaps.

[Sheff Saint]

They certainly said it to Leeds, so maybe it is a line they say to all of these clubs and maybe they have all just taken it on the chin.

 

If you look at the Leeds case, then the League certainly showed some discretion in allowing Leeds to stay in Division 1 (how much of a compromise that is is a matter of judgement).

 

So is the discussion Pinnacle are having with the FL about if we start in League 1 on -27, or League 2 on 0?

 

That would be a hard decision. Last season S****horpe got promoted but would have been relegated if you docked them 27 points! EDIT - They'd have stayed up on goal difference!

Edited 22 June, 2009 by Sheff Saint

[um pahars]

This link from another thread say that Rotherham, Bournemouth & Luton all had the same sort of deal:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8113850.stm

 

So what they are doing to us is exactly what they have done to Leeds and others.

 

We're not being unfairly picked on and the League are being consistent.

 

I presume their motive is not to have appeals hanging over the football season.

[um pahars]

its much simpler than that.

most processes in law or regulations, or even within a company have a right of appeal.

The FL said we could appeal.

Now they are using the change of licensing as a heavy handed way to remove that right.

 

We have got a right of appeal and at the same time the League have a right to start us in Div 4.

 

They will compromise and allow us to start in Div 3 if we compromise and forego an appeal.

[sotonist]

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).

I don't know what the purpose of your compaison was, but NewCo doesn't want to acquire the assets of SFC. it is acquiring SFC. There is no new member. The original member will change hands.

 

And hopefully for the last time, the only redress we have is via arbitration, due to the FA's Rule K.

As far as getting our points back via a means of redress i'm sure you're right, but as football is a business and there is money involved there has to be scope for compensation as with sheffield united/west ham. The FL could get awkward again and take their ball home with them but i'd be so sorely tempted to make them try.

 

In fact if Pinnacle weren't so determined to buy the club and no buyer could be found before it went under I'd be tempted to buy SFC limited with no footballing business only to try and sue the football league for what it had done.

[NickG]

not sure they have - we are being sold

[Ronaldo's a pansy]

We have got a right of appeal and at the same time the League have a right to start us in Div 4.

 

They will compromise and allow us to start in Div 3 if we compromise and forego an appeal.

 

If you do not currently exist, then you do not have the RIGHT to anything. An existing member of the FL is presumably entitled to some rights, but if you are trying to join something from the position of being a non member (as is currently the case), then you either accept the membership requirements or you don't get admitted, and you remain an outsider.

In simplistic terms, I think it is still the case that a landlord of a pub has the right to refuse anyone a drink.

[SaintRichmond]

In other words if another party is willing to pay for exclusivity and effectively keep the club alive for another month Fry will accept it with open arms.

 

 

Enter The Dragon ............ The Jackson Five ........strings being pulled by ?????

[um pahars]

I don't know what the purpose of your compaison was, but NewCo doesn't want to acquire the assets of SFC. it is acquiring SFC. There is no new member. The original member will change hands.

 

I agree that that part of the comparison looks different in that Fry and Pinnacle will try and say no NewCo is being established, it is merely a transfer of ownership.

 

But as the League ruled with regards applying their Insolvency Policy to SFC Ltd (when it was not in administration), they are prepared to use their authority and discretion and look at substance over form.

 

And if you look at the whole of the League ruling with regards Leeds, the Arbitration Panel at the time were supportive of the League using its discretion and authority to pursue their (and their members) stated aims.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Does the Football League fall into the category of a 'Regulatory Body' ? - if so :

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgment_guidance/judicial_review/index.htm

[um pahars]

Does the Football League fall into the category of a 'Regulatory Body' ? - if so :

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgment_guidance/judicial_review/index.htm

 

Nope, judicial reviews are for public bodies.

[Puddings and Monkeys]

I agree that that part of the comparison looks different in that Fry and Pinnacle will try and say no NewCo is being established, it is merely a transfer of ownership.

 

But as the League ruled with regards applying their Insolvency Policy to SFC Ltd (when it was not in administration), they are prepared to use their authority and discretion and look at substance over form.

 

And if you look at the whole of the League ruling with regards Leeds, the Arbitration Panel at the time were supportive of the League using its discretion and authority to pursue their (and their members) stated aims.

 

You keep going on about Leeds, but aren't the two cases totally different?

[um pahars]

You keep going on about Leeds, but aren't the two cases totally different?

 

Loads of differences, but also loads of similarities but it also shows the intent of the League to pursue what they believe is in the best interest of the Leauge as a whole. It also shows the League can use their discretion and authority to rule on these matters and that their conduct was supported by an Independent Arbitration Panel.

 

Of course each case is different, but my money would be on a similar outcome as per Leeds (and others) where the League's view won the day.

 

I'm certainly no expert on this, but if you step back and look at it rationally and objectively, along wiith reading stuf from these links, then you start to get a feel for where I'm coming from.

 

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

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4c/ec/0,,10794~126028,00.pdf

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4b/ec/0,,10794~126027,00.pdf

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/78/3/0,,10794~888,00.pdf

[teamsaint]

As I understand it, Pinnacle are buying assets (shares)of the existing companies. So its really NOT a new company, in the sense of being a totally new entity. (Like say Bristol city when they went bust)

 

So the only rule we have broken is the one about going into administration. Thus it should be -10 and start in L1. Anything else is vindictive FL nonsense.

[um pahars]

As I understand it, Pinnacle are buying assets (shares)of the existing companies. So its really NOT a new company, in the sense of being a totally new entity. (Like say Bristol city when they went bust)

 

So the only rule we have broken is the one about going into administration. Thus it should be -10 and start in L1. Anything else is vindictive FL nonsense.

 

I think technically you're probably right, in that there will be no NewCo just a transfer of ownership, but Ithink the League will look behind that.

 

I also don't think the League are being vindictive here as they will want us in the League. They just have to be seen to be fair to the other clubs in the League (particularly those that have had points deducted previously).

[Wopper]

The league are saying take it or leave it and if you dont like it f-off.

[Shroppie]

What I cannot understand is the League's comment that it:

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

Surely no one is disputing that we start next season in league 1?

(and it should say 'the competition in which they compete')

 

What this means is starting the season certain of your position - ie knowing how many points you haven't got and not having the possibility that an appeal could change league position later. This is their excuse for no appeal.

[iansums]

If the 'offer' from the FL is: League 1, -10 pts deduction, no right of appeal and a guarantee of no further points deductions then surely Pinnacle should accept this. I think at this late stage this would be acceptable to most people.

[eurosaint]

The bottom line is that if Pinnacle want to buy SFC then they will have to accept the -10 penalty and move on.... (prevaricating on a point of principle is now holding us back!).

To have any chance of quickly regaining these points they will need to start employing a manager, building a team, getting it fit, selling tickets, hoisting flags and rekindling the 'Spirit of Sothampton' !

I am fully supportive of the Pinnacle group but really do think that we are at the stage of come on ' let's get the show on the road' !!!

[Grim Reaper]

AS a bit of an irony i think more points can be lost by not getting the team prepared under their new manager and any transfer dealings dealt with as soon as possible as time spent ironing out this mess.

 

Just get on with it and we will soon have those points back is my feelings.