saintbletch Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Agree 100%, the risks of continuing to delay the purchase of the club appear now to far outweigh the risks of going ahead without resolution of the licence issues to the club's satisfaction. If that licence issue solely hinges on the right to appeal then to be honest the delay cannot be justified especially as an appeal has no guarantee of success. In fact dragging on with an appeal, post purchase, could be become a negative distraction and even more damaging in the long run if the club decided to take that route. Last time I looked the forum users were 68% in favour of accepting the FL's punishment. If like me they feel that the club may have acted within the rules but not within the spirit of the rules and therefore the ruling seems fair, especially looking at from the perspective of all the other clubs, then why appeal and court unnecessary risk?. Also, I firmly believe if we start the new Pinnacle era today a 10 point penalty should not be that difficult to overcome but with every day that passes and the team seemingly cast adrift that confidence is eroded so perhaps we need that right to appeal if that is the sole sticking point. It feels like Pinnacle are in danger of falling into a Catch 22 IMO. I broadly agree with your point. Perhaps this threatened appeal / court action is a red herring? Perhaps the -10 is not the issue but instead Pinnacle is using the pressure on the FL to ensure that our inability to produce a CVA will not mean more points deductions? i.e. they are happy with -10 but not a potential -25 so they suggest they're ready to go to court over the ability to appeal the -10 and at the eleventh hour they back down and accept the -10 on condition that it is only -10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I agree, at best confidence is diminishing and its not as though they are trying to secure something absolutely key to the club's ability to survive. i.e ground ownership or access to playing facilities. Unless I have misunderstood the whole thing the purchase is allegedly being delayed on a point of principle with the FL. A rule that 68% of fans on here were happy to accept the punishmentfrom the FL, so why not PInnacle? 10 points is nothing as Leicester proved last year and Leeds made the play offs with an even bigger deficit. Of course the delay can only diminish our chances of elminating that deficit which then makes the negotiations with the FL critical. Are we moving into Catch 22 territory? We have no evidence whatsoever that the problem is the -10, and not some back-door method that the lawyers have spotted for the FL to make it -25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Agree 100%, the risks of continuing to delay the purchase of the club appear now to far outweigh the risks of going ahead without resolution of the licence issues to the club's satisfaction. If that licence issue solely hinges on the right to appeal then to be honest the delay cannot be justified especially as an appeal has no guarantee of success. In fact dragging on with an appeal, post purchase, could be become a negative distraction and even more damaging in the long run if the club decided to take that route. Last time I looked the forum users were 68% in favour of accepting the FL's punishment. If like me they feel that the club may have acted within the rules but not within the spirit of the rules and therefore the ruling seems fair, especially looking at from the perspective of all the other clubs, then why appeal and court unnecessary risk?. Also, I firmly believe if we start the new Pinnacle era today a 10 point penalty should not be that difficult to overcome but with every day that passes and the team seemingly cast adrift that confidence is eroded so perhaps we need that right to appeal if that is the sole sticking point. It feels like Pinnacle are in danger of falling into a Catch 22 IMO. Problem is they have Counsels Opinion saying 70% chance of success in overturning the situation. To me 70% is a risk and I am sure the FL will have an equally bullish opinion but you have to weigh up the costs against the gains. I ran a case in the Commerial Court in London where I had a similar % but with a little previous judgement history in my favour. If I lost it was likely to cost £1m in damages and risk opening a can of worms. If I won it was saving me and cementing previous judgements. As it happens I won but it was a big risk. Both sides will think they can get a judgement. The FL appear to be taking that risk away by saying if you want the golden share to enable you to play in this league you must abide by our decision. Did you get my note? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Dear All forum users, and fans alike It's now the early hours of Tuesday morning, and before we sign off for the night, I thought you might appreciate some clarity, though appreciate that most of the fans who use this medium might not read this until tomorrow (by which time, this could well have been superseded). Clearly the Football Leagues position as announced this evening is of disappointment. However, discussions are on-going seeking to resolve this as quickly as possible. The League have a duty and responsibility for all of its members, so they have a different opinion to my own concerning certain aspects of our license (I only care about Southampton Football Club, whilst respecting other members in the right manner). The Administrators have made their position clear in their statement this evening, and it is pleasing to see that their views (which are totally independent to our own) are along the same lines as ours. I am still awaiting information from the League concerning their position and I should hope to have this without delay. This is not something I (nor my colleagues) can influence – rather one of those things which will happen as part of a normal process. We are not at loggerheads with the League. I have made this clear via other mediums this evening - we are working together for an acceptable solution to an issue, so please treat the League with the respect that they deserve. I spoke with 3 officials from the League today and whilst the content of those discussions will always remain confidential, I can assure you that the League are working hard to find an acceptable solution to this issue. Finger pointing and blame culture isn't going to resolve this. Rationale thinking and adult debate will, and common sense, law and the rule book will ensure a mutually agreeable outcome. I can only imagine too well how deeply frustrating this is for all of you - none more so than myself, but we remain totally committed and confident that our takeover will be concluded shortly, thus enabling us to get on with the important challenge ahead, putting Southampton Football Club back on the map for the right reasons. Please also spare a thought for all the staff at the Club who are working in difficult circumstances – they are top of our list of priorities, and so they should be. Thank you for your continued support, and I truly hope that these final hurdles will be out of the way without further delay. With kind regards Tony In all fairness , surely any interested party wishing to purchase SFc already knew that the points deduction was already in place. If the TL, MLT and its money backer had the business bottle to make a bold decision and go ahead with the -10 , knuckle down to the season with a good manager the -10 points is irrelevant . Leeds made the play off , maybe the stance taken by the FL is a bit of a red herring , an uncrossable obstacle which Pinnacle cannot overcome, they thought they could take on the FL , it is quite clear they are not going to win this battle and no reverse of the decision is going to happen. So, is TL dragging this out in order to make the bid / backers look like they are on the side of the fans , taking on the high and mighty FL. It just seems that from what was a clear cut deal , is now cold feet and they are looking at ways to come out of this bid with some of their reputation up held as being "one of the fans". "We did our best Lads" It feels like this constant " another 24 hours" " It will be sorted soon" ect ect is becoming a bit tiresome. Maybe another bidder with the business balls to make a bold decision will now come into the frame. It is always a gamble purchasing any company , but some times , if you truly believe that you can make a success of it, you just do it, you over come the obstacles and battle on. I think Pinnacle, now, don't truly believe that they have the business acumen to do it. When the dust is all settled, some can say they did all they can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armitage Shanks Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I agree, at best confidence is diminishing and its not as though they are trying to secure something absolutely key to the club's ability to survive. i.e ground ownership or access to playing facilities. Unless I have misunderstood the whole thing the purchase is allegedly being delayed on a point of principle with the FL. A rule that 68% of fans on here were happy to accept the punishmentfrom the FL, so why not PInnacle? 10 points is nothing as Leicester proved last year and Leeds made the play offs with an even bigger deficit. Of course the delay can only diminish our chances of elminating that deficit which then makes the negotiations with the FL critical. Are we moving into Catch 22 territory? No we're not entering into "Catch 22 territory". I suggest that you read his e-mail again, take a deep breath and along with many other people on here, stop being a drama queen. It will happen when it's ready to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 It laughable how all the luvvies still flock together. They are still here hoverrrring..Reformed and renamed The Lowe Jackson Dancing Troupe...Ra Ra skirts and Pom Poms....Rupes is still Troupe Director with Jacko and once bitten as principal dancers. My own or IMO or IMHO they want everyone else to fail and that is why they cumm on here with their hissy fits and bad mouthing.....Its all about Rupes and they will not let go....Certain posters are WUM but this little crew even pretend to be Saints supporters.... I will be glad with this concluded in the next day or so and Jacko and Britians got talent Majorettes are sent on their hols to Iran...:smt039 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 But for the first time, I am beginning to doubt that this will go through. lol - are we stuck in some sort of time warp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Lynhams analogy with a house purchase was interesting. Why would you pay the deposit on the club without the intention of completing!. Also interesting that more than £1/2m was paid as the Ajax game had to be paid for. He says Pinnacle remain in the driving seat He must have read my reply to his message last night on the original thread using house analogies. Why would you exchange and not complete? I suppose you could pull out if you didn't use your own money to pay the deposit in the first place and there was no comeback on you for doing so. Otherwise better too lose £500k than many millions. It's good Pinnacle remain in the driving seat, excellent in fact but even driving licences have expiry dates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 It laughable how all the luvvies still flock together. I think WE are the REAL luvvies...WE are REAL actors..they are just amateur wanabeeees.:smt007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burger Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I think WE are the REAL luvvies...WE are REAL actors..they are just amateur wanabeeees.:smt007 You may be right. Everyone seems to come out with the same lines night after night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 And WE KNOW YOUR VIEW ON UNCLE RUPERT AND HIS FELLOW LAVENDER HILL MOB.:smt073 It laughable how all the luvvies still flock together. They are still here hoverrrring..Reformed and renamed The Lowe Jackson Dancing Troupe...Ra Ra skirts and Pom Poms....Rupes is still Troupe Director with Jacko and once bitten as principal dancers. My own or IMO or IMHO they want everyone else to fail and that is why they cumm on here with their hissy fits and bad mouthing.....Its all about Rupes and they will not let go....Certain posters are WUM but this little crew even pretend to be Saints supporters.... I will be glad with this concluded in the next day or so and Jacko and Britians got talent Majorettes are sent on their hols to Iran...:smt039 I think WE are the REAL luvvies...WE are REAL actors..they are just amateur wanabeeees.:smt007 No contradiction in errrr actions here guys then... no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burger Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I see Liverpool as re-negotiating their debt - isn't this the same "unfair" advantage as writing off debt as part of Admin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I broadly agree with your point. Perhaps this threatened appeal / court action is a red herring? Perhaps the -10 is not the issue but instead Pinnacle is using the pressure on the FL to ensure that our inability to produce a CVA will not mean more points deductions? i.e. they are happy with -10 but not a potential -25 so they suggest they're ready to go to court over the ability to appeal the -10 and at the eleventh hour they back down and accept the -10 on condition that it is only -10. Very good point Bletch and one I hadn't considered. Obviously, the inability to disclose the reality behind the licence issues during discussions between the two parties is leading to ever more complex but reasonable scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 (edited) No contradiction in errrr actions here guys then... no? In the real world of Saints...We are all luvvies...but the troupe I am in is prettier than the other shower of layabouts...:cool: Edited 23 June, 2009 by ottery st mary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Very good point Bletch and one I hadn't considered. Obviously, the inability to disclose the reality behind the licence issues during discussions between the two parties is leading to ever more complex but reasonable scenarios. I think Saint Bletch, is on the money with this one and would be very surpised if all the wranglings are simply down to the minus 10........ which they have known about fo some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 We have no evidence whatsoever that the problem is the -10, and not some back-door method that the lawyers have spotted for the FL to make it -25. Thanks Alpine, I had overlooked that possibility as I just responsed to Bletch above but even at -25 there comes a time when the risks of delay will outweigh the risks of not achieving legal closure with the FL. Just means in all probability an extra season in L1. If the discussions are as you suggest then the ramifications to Pinnacle or any potential purchaser are far greater and resolution will not be easy as I agree with many others that i cannot see the FL backing down on this issue without a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Man Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 As has been said elsewhere, the real problem could be that the FL may demand to see a CVA when we are bought otherwise we get hit with a further 15 point deduction. As Pinnacle are buying SFC (which is not in Administration) and not SLH (which is), it wil not be possible to produce a CVA for SFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_bert Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Apreciate the update Tony. It is only my opinion but this latest update didnt seem as emphatic as his previous posts have been. Im getting very worried now. Like I say its just my opinion, and maybe im percieving it that way because of my own worries. I very much want this all put to bed asap. Please keep up the good work Pinnacle, and please dont give up on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 As has been said elsewhere, the real problem could be that the FL may demand to see a CVA when we are bought otherwise we get hit with a further 15 point deduction. As Pinnacle are buying SFC (which is not in Administration) and not SLH (which is), it wil not be possible to produce a CVA for SFC. (IMHO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Appreciate the updates Tony! I think what you have said in regards to the situation with the football league makes a lot of sense. It is such a complicated issue that it is/was never going to be easy. But at least you sound like your both on the same page now and as you said not finger pointing. This makes me believe that maybe what your saying is true. But you mention what matters now is the staff, and rightly so. The people behind the scenes who have no idea of what will happen to their position. Like i said yesterday -10 points is 4 games to make up. Just 8% of the games, that is not that bad. But having no manager, no board, no finances, no season tickets, no players and generally no plans is far far more damaging to this club. We should be planning now for the season ahead. This is crucial to the clubs immediate future. So if the staff are the main priority then sign the deal and get on with it, minus 10 points does not effect the staff from a negative outcome or a positive one. The deal should not be about this point at all. In 2years time it will be forgotten, but if you pull out of the deal now at this hour after the amount of time and effort you have put in then that will not be forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I broadly agree with your point. Perhaps this threatened appeal / court action is a red herring? Perhaps the -10 is not the issue but instead Pinnacle is using the pressure on the FL to ensure that our inability to produce a CVA will not mean more points deductions? i.e. they are happy with -10 but not a potential -25 so they suggest they're ready to go to court over the ability to appeal the -10 and at the eleventh hour they back down and accept the -10 on condition that it is only -10. Sorry dont agree - because teh new ownesr are buying assest from SLH for a fee of 15 mil - a fee that has been agreed by creditors and teh administrators thus accepting 53-55p in teh pound they will in effect be accepting that as a contract and thus a 'CVA' - SFC will not need a CVA as it will have NO creditors outstanding. SLH will have met all the obligations of the creditors as they will ahev agreed to the assett sale price (15 mil) which providing SLH has no outstanding debt to HMRC or other clubs will mean SFC is free to trade and partake within the league rules - so I think that teh extra points thing is a red rerring... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Licence issued and sign the papers and we are rocking and rolling...We are there ..surely...the other business is now sorted.....-10 and win the first 10 games..No problem....Announcement today ..hopefully. Lets move on before Jacko proffers up his £50 note and gives more supporters summfink to squeal for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Sorry dont agree - because teh new ownesr are buying assest from SLH for a fee of 15 mil - a fee that has been agreed by creditors and teh administrators thus accepting 53-55p in teh pound they will in effect be accepting that as a contract and thus a 'CVA' - SFC will not need a CVA as it will have NO creditors outstanding. SLH will have met all the obligations of the creditors as they will ahev agreed to the assett sale price (15 mil) which providing SLH has no outstanding debt to HMRC or other clubs will mean SFC is free to trade and partake within the league rules - so I think that teh extra points thing is a red rerring... I was trying to come up with an explanation for the apparent contradiction of Tony Lynam telling the fans they will definitely buy the club whilst apparently telling the FL that they need to change something before they will buy the club. Why would the FL change it's approach if Pinnacle has publicly stated it is going to buy the club regardless? I therefore thought it must be a red herring of sorts. I follow your argument and I understand that we effectively will have negotiated a CVA with the creditors of the PLC but I thought the FL insists on a CVA as the legal device that clubs must present to avoid the 25 points deduction a la Leeds. Surely IF the FL accepts your above scenario that we don't need a CVA then it tacitly acknowledge that the FC never went into administration? Hence their need to insert the alleged no appeal clause. Surely IF Pinnacle accepts the -10 points but does not produce a CVA then they will need a clause saying that they will be docked further points? Have I misunderstood the workings here FC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I was trying to come up with an explanation for the apparent contradiction of Tony Lynam telling the fans they will definitely buy the club whilst apparently telling the FL that they need to change something before they will buy the club. Why would the FL change it's approach if Pinnacle has publicly stated it is going to buy the club regardless? I therefore thought it must be a red herring of sorts. I follow your argument and I understand that we effectively will have negotiated a CVA with the creditors of the PLC but I thought the FL insists on a CVA as the legal device that clubs must present to avoid the 25 points deduction a la Leeds. Surely IF the FL accepts your above scenario that we don't need a CVA then it tacitly acknowledge that the FC never went into administration? Hence their need to insert the alleged no appeal clause. Surely IF Pinnacle accepts the -10 points but does not produce a CVA then they will need a clause saying that they will be docked further points? Have I misunderstood the workings here FC? I see what you are saying, but i think its a case of all parties accepting the situation without the need to admit they were wrong ;-) I think this explanation actually allows all parties to save face - The FL who insist we are in admin as SFC=SLH so in effect if SLH have agreed the 55p in the pound with all creditors they will have a legal contract with said creditors which will satisfy the FL rules /need for CVA - But as SFC do not consider themselves in admin they wont want to have a CVA in place independently because as you say this would be admiting they were in admin - As it is the compromise should be that: The FL accept the SLH agreements with all creditors as the CVA, afterall they have insisted that SLH and SFC are 'inextricably' linked, and SFC does not need to have its own CVAs at it has no creditors anyway - so in theory no one loses face. I dont see how the FL could later insist that SFC have a CVA in place or points deduction when under their own rules they have accepted the CVA is in place with SLH which they in turn believe to be the same as SFC.... does that make sense? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I see what you are saying, but i think its a case of all parties accepting the situation without the need to admit they were wrong ;-) I think this explanation actually allows all parties to save face - The FL who insist we are in admin as SFC=SLH so in effect if SLH have agreed the 55p in the pound with all creditors they will have a legal contract with said creditors which will satisfy the FL rules /need for CVA - But as SFC do not consider themselves in admin they wont want to have a CVA in place independently because as you say this would be admiting they were in admin - As it is the compromise should be that: The FL accept the SLH agreements with all creditors as the CVA, afterall they have insisted that SLH and SFC are 'inextricably' linked, and SFC does not need to have its own CVAs at it has no creditors anyway - so in theory no one loses face. I dont see how the FL could later insist that SFC have a CVA in place or points deduction when under their own rules they have accepted the CVA is in place with SLH which they in turn believe to be the same as SFC.... does that make sense? ;-) Yes it does FC and I was simply wondering out loud whether the public debate about the 10 point deduction might just be posturing to get the FL to the table to negotiate what you describe in your last paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I'm starting to lean towards Bletch's view. Pinnacle will go ahead if they are guaranteed that it's ten and only ten. The FL likes to receive guarantees but not give them, and might be reluctant to give that commitment. However, the FL needs to remember this: Its biggest legal threat comes not from one of its members but from someone who has spent a p*sspot full of money trying to become one, and failed because of the FL's unfair behaviour. They've both got their arses sticking out the window on this one and they both need to pull them in. At the same time, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I was trying to come up with an explanation for the apparent contradiction of Tony Lynam telling the fans they will definitely buy the club whilst apparently telling the FL that they need to change something before they will buy the club. Why would the FL change it's approach if Pinnacle has publicly stated it is going to buy the club regardless? I therefore thought it must be a red herring of sorts. I follow your argument and I understand that we effectively will have negotiated a CVA with the creditors of the PLC but I thought the FL insists on a CVA as the legal device that clubs must present to avoid the 25 points deduction a la Leeds. Surely IF the FL accepts your above scenario that we don't need a CVA then it tacitly acknowledge that the FC never went into administration? Hence their need to insert the alleged no appeal clause. Surely IF Pinnacle accepts the -10 points but does not produce a CVA then they will need a clause saying that they will be docked further points? Have I misunderstood the workings here FC? This is exactly my take on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I was trying to come up with an explanation for the apparent contradiction of Tony Lynam telling the fans they will definitely buy the club whilst apparently telling the FL that they need to change something before they will buy the club. Why would the FL change it's approach if Pinnacle has publicly stated it is going to buy the club regardless? I therefore thought it must be a red herring of sorts. I follow your argument and I understand that we effectively will have negotiated a CVA with the creditors of the PLC but I thought the FL insists on a CVA as the legal device that clubs must present to avoid the 25 points deduction a la Leeds. Surely IF the FL accepts your above scenario that we don't need a CVA then it tacitly acknowledge that the FC never went into administration? Hence their need to insert the alleged no appeal clause. Surely IF Pinnacle accepts the -10 points but does not produce a CVA then they will need a clause saying that they will be docked further points? Have I misunderstood the workings here FC? I'm thinking similar thought but perhaps an alternative mutually acceptable 'way out' would be for 'SFC Ltd' to actually go into administration, albeit very temporarily so that it triggers an arbitrary/token CVA process, on condition that the FL will guarantee that all we lose is 10 points....dunno TBH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints foreva Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 As has been said elsewhere, the real problem could be that the FL may demand to see a CVA when we are bought otherwise we get hit with a further 15 point deduction. As Pinnacle are buying SFC (which is not in Administration) and not SLH (which is), it wil not be possible to produce a CVA for SFC. I believe Exeter City had a CVA in 2003 and were not in admin. I may be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Has it been confirmed this is a real post from TL. It looks like a NickG wind-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Has it been confirmed this is a real post from TL. It looks like a NickG wind-up. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=339390#post339390 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I see what you are saying, but i think its a case of all parties accepting the situation without the need to admit they were wrong ;-) I think this explanation actually allows all parties to save face - The FL who insist we are in admin as SFC=SLH so in effect if SLH have agreed the 55p in the pound with all creditors they will have a legal contract with said creditors which will satisfy the FL rules /need for CVA - But as SFC do not consider themselves in admin they wont want to have a CVA in place independently because as you say this would be admiting they were in admin - As it is the compromise should be that: The FL accept the SLH agreements with all creditors as the CVA, afterall they have insisted that SLH and SFC are 'inextricably' linked, and SFC does not need to have its own CVAs at it has no creditors anyway - so in theory no one loses face. I dont see how the FL could later insist that SFC have a CVA in place or points deduction when under their own rules they have accepted the CVA is in place with SLH which they in turn believe to be the same as SFC.... does that make sense? ;-) The bit that makes no sense is that you couldn't possibly purchase a component (and therefore extricate it) from something to which it was inextricably linked. Or is it a bit too optimistic to expect reasonable use of the language from an industry that gave us expressions such as 'the boy done good'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 The bit that makes no sense is that you couldn't possibly purchase a component (and therefore extricate it) from something to which it was inextricably linked. Or is it a bit too optimistic to expect reasonable use of the language from an industry that gave us expressions such as 'the boy done good'? LOL...true - but in typocal football arse about tit fashion i think a sort of smudge is our best hiope so to speak....;-) 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