Beer Engine Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 1. The FL's decision is entirely lawful on technical grounds. 2. The FL's decision is fair on moral grounds. 3. The right to "appeal" against a decision that would be upheld on "appeal" is worthless. 4. Even if we waive our right to appeal in our membership contract we can still go to arbitration under Paragraph K of the FA Rules, as Leeds did in similar circumstances. 5. If we do go to arbitration, our claim to have the points deduction overturned will not be allowed. 6. If the "appeal" issue is so important why was it not addressed with FL at the outset rather than at the end of the exclusivity period? 7. Any further delay in preparing for next season will probably cost us 10 points anyway. It's obvious that the "appeal" is issue is a red herring which has been introduced either: (a) to sort out more fundamental problems with the deal or (b) because Pinnacle haven't raised the money. So what do you kick Mr L - ass or tyres?
Pancake Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Well thats that solved then. Someone call Tony and Matt and tell then to get the lawyers to stand down.
Grim Reaper Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Point number six has been bothering me since this arose.
Burnsie Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Post of the Week. Points 1 and 2 aren't made nearly enough on here.
Gingeletiss Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 1. The FL's decision is entirely lawful on technical grounds. 2. The FL's decision is fair on moral grounds. 3. The right to "appeal" against a decision that would be upheld on "appeal" is worthless. 4. Even if we waive our right to appeal in our membership contract we can still go to arbitration under Paragraph K of the FA Rules, as Leeds did in similar circumstances. 5. If we do go to arbitration, our claim to have the points deduction overturned will not be allowed. 6. If the "appeal" issue is so important why was it not addressed with FL at the outset rather than at the end of the exclusivity period? 7. Any further delay in preparing for next season will probably cost us 10 points anyway. It's obvious that the "appeal" is issue is a red herring which has been introduced either: (a) to sort out more fundamental problems with the deal or (b) because Pinnacle haven't raised the money. So what do you kick Mr L - ass or tyres? If you had taken the trouble to read all the statements, you would see that all was agreed with the FL.....the appeal issue was a last minute spanner that the FL threw into the works.
egreog Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Just take the -10 pts and move on..........its only 3 wins and a draw and in the overall picture of things is hardly a deal breaker...........like many I think it may well be a way out!
itchen Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 i think pinnacle are looking for a way out But surely the way out is to say "I'm sorry but, having looked further into it, we no longer want to purchase SFC." They don't need to concoct artificial obstacles. There's no contract. They paid for exclusivity and that has now expired. If they don't want the club all they have to do is say "no".
SaintRichmond Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 No latest update from " Mr Info " Lynam ?????
exit2 Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 It's obvious that the "appeal" is issue is a red herring which has been introduced either: (a) to sort out more fundamental problems with the deal or (b) because Pinnacle haven't raised the money. So what do you kick Mr L - ass or tyres? or © they were unware of the Non Appeal clause until Wednesday /Thursday when the FL started the license process
Doctoroncall Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 If you had taken the trouble to read all the statements, you would see that all was agreed with the FL.....the appeal issue was a last minute spanner that the FL threw into the works. But surely an expected outcome from the FL considering previous teams had similar problems while exiting administration. Or was it the case of let's not mention it and hope they will not to which again doesn't add up. It all seems odd to me and there is more to it than relinquishing the right of appeal.
ItchenRob Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Post of the Week. Points 1 and 2 aren't made nearly enough on here. I might accept 2 but, being a solicitor, I would be interested in the legal technicalities as to why 1 is viewed as correct?
alpine_saint Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 i think pinnacle are looking for a way out Does that excite you ?
Scudamore Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 i think pinnacle are looking for a way out The way out would be to walk away surely? F::ck me...car journeys must be fun with you lot... Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
saintjay77 Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 No latest update from " Mr Info " Lynam ????? Fluck me you didnt mention Lowe! ...... YOU feeling ........ ALLright????????
The9 Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Frankly, none of the points above are anything other than extremely arguable, and they've all been done to death elsewhere in the Forum. And as its been said above, if they want out, they just say "no thanks".
fletch Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 i think pinnacle are looking for a way out Yep, because any business man who throws 1/2 a mill just to look at the books would make any excuse to get out of the deal wouldn't they? Numpty! Fact - The first thing anyone, yes anyone would do when wanting to buy this club is to get the -10 removed, why? 1. Less to spend to get out of the league 2. An easier exercie to get back in the championship 3. Quicker r4eovery into the prem and money Use your loaf man.
CB Fry Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 1. The FL's decision is entirely lawful on technical grounds. 2. The FL's decision is fair on moral grounds. 3. The right to "appeal" against a decision that would be upheld on "appeal" is worthless. 4. Even if we waive our right to appeal in our membership contract we can still go to arbitration under Paragraph K of the FA Rules, as Leeds did in similar circumstances. 5. If we do go to arbitration, our claim to have the points deduction overturned will not be allowed. 6. If the "appeal" issue is so important why was it not addressed with FL at the outset rather than at the end of the exclusivity period? 7. Any further delay in preparing for next season will probably cost us 10 points anyway. It's obvious that the "appeal" is issue is a red herring which has been introduced either: (a) to sort out more fundamental problems with the deal or (b) because Pinnacle haven't raised the money. So what do you kick Mr L - ass or tyres? Excellent post, which will be ignored by the lunatics screaming about "human rights" and "the FL are breaking the law!!!!!!" and other such garbage that is being churned out day in day out on here. And anyone saying the non appeal ruling is a "last minute spanner in the works" is utterly deluded. It was plain as day to anyone eighty days ago when this all started.
gordonToo Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 (b) because Pinnacle haven't raised the money. Looks the most likely.
Beer Engine Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Posted 24 June, 2009 But surely an expected outcome from the FL considering previous teams had similar problems while exiting administration.... It all seems odd to me and there is more to it than relinquishing the right of appeal. This what "new" Leeds had in their memebrship agreement with the FL:- 4.1 Leeds hereby release the League ... from all claims, whether known or unknown to Leeds, which Leeds has or may have against [the League] arising out of or connected, whether directly or indirectly with ... the conduct of the League with regards to OldCo, the Conditions and the imposition of the sanction or, if passed, the Appeal Sanction (the “Claims”). (Emphasis added) 4.2 Except for the obligations created by this Agreement Leeds hereby covenants that it shall not ... commence, or threaten to commence any proceedings in any jurisdiction before any court, arbitration body ... against [the League] ... arising out of or connected, whether directly or indirectly with any of the Claims”. (Emphasis added) And the arbitration panel upheld it on "appeal" under the FA rules. Surely Pinnacle or their lawyers or Fryor his lawyers must have known about this from the off.
The Incongruous Monk Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 1. The FL's decision is entirely lawful on technical grounds. Quite simply this is wrong. SLH lawyers think it's wrong, the Administrators lawyers think it's wrong, the Pinnacle lawyers think it's wrong. Even the Football League seem to have some doubts and are trying to ensure the debate is never held. Under the law and the rules you cannot support this claim with any evidence. 2. The FL's decision is fair on moral grounds. This is probably true but is also entirely subjective. Remember, also, that when push comes to shove the spirit of the rules is irrelevant. It's the letter of the rules that counts. 6. If the "appeal" issue is so important why was it not addressed with FL at the outset rather than at the end of the exclusivity period? It's been reported a number of times, and stated (on Radio Solent, perhaps elsewhere) by Tony Lynham himself that the issues with the FL were thrown up very late by changes made by the FL. Perhaps more foresight could have been applied but that's easy to say with hindsight. :-)
stevegrant Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 This what "new" Leeds had in their memebrship agreement with the FL:- 4.1 Leeds hereby release the League ... from all claims, whether known or unknown to Leeds, which Leeds has or may have against [the League] arising out of or connected, whether directly or indirectly with ... the conduct of the League with regards to OldCo, the Conditions and the imposition of the sanction or, if passed, the Appeal Sanction (the “Claims”). (Emphasis added) 4.2 Except for the obligations created by this Agreement Leeds hereby covenants that it shall not ... commence, or threaten to commence any proceedings in any jurisdiction before any court, arbitration body ... against [the League] ... arising out of or connected, whether directly or indirectly with any of the Claims”. (Emphasis added) And the arbitration panel upheld it on "appeal" under the FA rules. Surely Pinnacle or their lawyers or Fryor his lawyers must have known about this from the off. Totally different circumstances though, the non-appeal clause for Leeds was for the 15-point deduction they were handed for failing to exit administration in accordance with the Football League's requirements. They did not seek to appeal the statutory 10-point deduction for going into administration.
SFC Forever Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Does make you wonder but, we still don't know all the facts and until we do I for 1 will hold back my judgement.
Beer Engine Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Posted 24 June, 2009 I might accept 2 but, being a solicitor, I would be interested in the legal technicalities as to why 1 is viewed as correct? The definition of a "football club" under the FL Regulations is essentially circular. A "club" is an "association football club" or words to that effect. If the assets and liabilities that comprise and are essential to the continuance of a "club" are spread out over a number of companies within a group under the control of a holding company then it is entirely reasonable for the FL to treat an insolvency event occuring at one or more of those companies as one that affects the "club" and brings the sporting sanctions into play. Whatever the deficiencies in the FL's drafting of the Regulations there is nothing in those Regulations to support the contention that they only apply to "clubs" which are 100% owned by a single entity. The FL's statement on the points deduction is bombproof both technically and morally IMHO - essentially what they were saying is that if all the assets and liabilities of Southampton Football Club had been vested in a single trading entity such as SFC Limited then that trading entity would have been insolvent. No tribunal is going to support an argument of dubious technical and moral merit in order to overturn a sanction that itself has greater technical merit and undoubted moral merit. To take the point further:- There is an appeal mechanism which is specific to the 10 points deduction. The sole ground of appeal is "Force Majeure" - ie the club would need to prove that the insolvency event was caused by an unforeseen event beyond the club's control - an example of such an event is given in the Regulations - being a situation where a club goes bust because another "club" has defaulted on payments due to it. What if Saints insolvency were due to the default of another club and that other "club" were set up like Saints and it was the holding company rather than one of its trading companies that technically owed Saints the money - if we apply the Fry/Pinnacle argument to that situation then that holding company is not a "club" within the meaning of the Regulations and so we would be denied an otherwise legitimate ground for appeal on the same technicality that we're trying to invoke now to avoid the imposition of the 10 point penalty. The postman always knocks twice ..
The9 Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 It was plain as day to anyone eighty days ago when this all started. Other than Mawhinney when he said we could appeal, evidently.
SFC Forever Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 There has been so many different problems regarding rules and still I expect more to follow. We will not be the last club hit with point reductions and I believe we could well see some more clubs hit this coming season. The FA has a lot to answer to and they should be able to put a stop to a lot of the trouble smaller clubs have by allowing a greater percentage of sky's money to go to the lower leagues. West Ham are the club who got away with most. Not the same I know but rules are rules. We on the other hand do not appear to have broken any rules aother than the one that says do not spend more than you have. I still feel Pinnacle will come across but am slightly concerned about the length of time being taken. There are pros and cons for the fight but at the end of the day we should do what is best for the club. Unless there is a hidden punishment awaiting us we should sign on the dotted line and start rebuilding. The delay is going to cost us a lot more if we are not careful. All IMHO of course, for what it's worth.
Beer Engine Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Posted 24 June, 2009 Totally different circumstances though, the non-appeal clause for Leeds was for the 15-point deduction they were handed for failing to exit administration in accordance with the Football League's requirements. They did not seek to appeal the statutory 10-point deduction for going into administration. Yes, but Steve, what it does demonstrate is that the FA's own arbitration process will support clauses in FL membership agreements that waive so-called rights to "appeal" against the FL's sanctions - whatever they are. The High Court will not review decisions of sports' governing bodies - so where do you go to try and overturn an FL sanction that is fair anyway? My feeling is that this deal is on the rocks - the FL cannot back down - so Pinnacle must eat their own ****ocks (as they say in Italy) or walk away ..
SaintRichmond Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Fluck me you didnt mention Lowe! ...... YOU feeling ........ ALLright???????? Now that you mention it ........ I am feeling a bit Lowe about the Pinnacle situation ........... thanks for reminding me ........
Pancake Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 The High Court will not review decisions of sports' governing bodies - so where do you go to try and overturn an FL sanction that is fair anyway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport So you think it is fair that are not allows the right to appeal?
SaintRichmond Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 There has been so many different problems regarding rules and still I expect more to follow. We will not be the last club hit with point reductions and I believe we could well see some more clubs hit this coming season. The FA has a lot to answer to and they should be able to put a stop to a lot of the trouble smaller clubs have by allowing a greater percentage of sky's money to go to the lower leagues. West Ham are the club who got away with most. Not the same I know but rules are rules. We on the other hand do not appear to have broken any rules aother than the one that says do not spend more than you have. I still feel Pinnacle will come across but am slightly concerned about the length of time being taken. There are pros and cons for the fight but at the end of the day we should do what is best for the club. Unless there is a hidden punishment awaiting us we should sign on the dotted line and start rebuilding. The delay is going to cost us a lot more if we are not careful. All IMHO of course, for what it's worth. It could well be that Pinnacle are trying to get the FL to put it in writing that once they Take SFC over, the FL won't then say " Oh by the way, it's ANOTHER 15 points on top " ..........
Evo Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Why are you so keen to convince everyone to move to your opinion Mr Engine? I'm not implying anything, this is a genuine question.
once_bitterne Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Of course it is. The real reason for the delay is that Pinnacle are struggling to find the cash. This should be no surprise after how long it took them to find the exclusivity money.
Mole Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 The "Appeal" issue is a red herring IN BEER ENGINES OPINION.
Beer Engine Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Posted 24 June, 2009 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport So you think it is fair that are not allows the right to appeal? In these circumstances - yes I do think that it's fair. Sorry reasons swallowed by my computer will post later Edited 24 June, 2009 by Beer Engine
Mole Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 In these circumstances - yes I do think that it's fair. Saints 2009 will be a new company/club applying to join the Football league. It will have picked up the assets of Southampton Football Club for less than the value of the club's debts at the expense of unpaid creditors. In return for those concessions and by way of offsetting the competitive advantage that the club obtained by living well beyond its means in the recent past and becoming insolvent, the FL is imposing a relatively small points deduction in the first year of membership - a deduction that is automatic in accordance with the Regulations agreed by all league members as recently as 2004. Put simply - we fans get a new club, a club that is being effectively subsidised by our unpaid creditors - we also get league membership and automatic promotion to the third division. Sounds fair to me. Absolute garbage.
Scudamore Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Absolute garbage. It's not garbage though is it Stanley? It's a pretty good post in fact... However this doesn't mean that Pinnacle shouldn't fight for every advantage they can get... Because that is what businesses do when they want to succeed...
Beer Engine Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Posted 24 June, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport So you think it is fair that are not allows the right to appeal? Saints 2009 will be a new company/club applying to join the Football league. It will have picked up the assets of Southampton Football Club for less than the value of the club's debts at the expense of unpaid creditors. The FL are offering us 2 concessions (1) league membership other than through promotion via the non-league pyramid and (2) automatic promotion to the third tier. In return for those concessions and by way of offsetting the competitive advantage that the club obtained by living well beyond its means in the recent past and becoming insolvent, the FL is imposing a relatively small points deduction in the first year of membership - a deduction that is automatic in accordance with the Regulations agreed by all league members as recently as 2004. If we accept the FL's offer of membership then the FL will need to be certain that these arrangements are not going to be overturned and subsequently cause chaos - so we either accept this deal by waiving our appeal rights or we join another league. Put simply - we fans get a new club, a club that is being effectively subsidised by our unpaid creditors - we also get league membership and automatic promotion to the third division. All in all agreeing once and for all to a 10 points deduction sounds fair to me.
norwaysaint Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 I think that not getting everything settled and sorting the team/transfers/manager/coaches etc soon will be more damaging than the 10 points.
Beer Engine Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Posted 24 June, 2009 Why are you so keen to convince everyone to move to your opinion Mr Engine? I'm not implying anything, this is a genuine question. Like everyone else here, I care passionately about our club. My instincts tell me that Pinnacle are unable or reluctant to complete the takeover for reasons unconnected with the points deduction. I would like them to ***t or get off the pot because I fear that the club might fold before the start of next season.
CB Fry Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Other than Mawhinney when he said we could appeal, evidently. After seven days, wasn't it?
Scummer Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Like everyone else here, I care passionately about our club. My instincts tell me that Pinnacle are unable or reluctant to complete the takeover for reasons unconnected with the points deduction. I would like them to ***t or get off the pot because I fear that the club might fold before the start of next season. If they pull out today, we'd likely fold tomorrow. Wages are due and there would be no-one to pay them. They aren't in an exclusivity period any more, there's nothing to stop someone else making an offer. Surely if others are keen, they'd be slamming money on the table as quickly as their hands could move? Lastly, as others have said, if Pinnacle have got cold feet they'd have pulled out by now. They wouldn't be racking up more bills going backwards and forwards with the FL.
kpturner Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Post of the Week. Good job there are a few days left this week then FFS!
pingpong Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 I think that not getting everything settled and sorting the team/transfers/manager/coaches etc soon will be more damaging than the 10 points. why do people keep going on about 10 points? if pinnacle buy the club, they won't be buying SLH, just the club = the football club won't be able to come out of admin because as an entity they aren't in admin, so... it will be another 15 points = -25points thats 8 wins and a draw. just to get back to zero. looking at the fixtures, I'd be unsurprised with 16 wins and 5 draws. that would give us a total 53 points, -25 = 28 points = relegation. I wonder if we'd be better off skipping down to league 2 now and starting on zero points. that way, we can get promoted to league 1 and next year we'll be in a better position.
CB Fry Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 (edited) In these circumstances - yes I do think that it's fair. Saints 2009 will be a new company/club applying to join the Football league. It will have picked up the assets of Southampton Football Club for less than the value of the club's debts at the expense of unpaid creditors. In return for those concessions and by way of offsetting the competitive advantage that the club obtained by living well beyond its means in the recent past and becoming insolvent, the FL is imposing a relatively small points deduction in the first year of membership - a deduction that is automatic in accordance with the Regulations agreed by all league members as recently as 2004. Put simply - we fans get a new club, a club that is being effectively subsidised by our unpaid creditors - we also get league membership and automatic promotion to the third division. Sounds fair to me. Excellent, excellent post. The whiners and whingers making out how hard done by we are and how unfair it all is are conveniently forgetting the club will be a hell of a lot stronger post admin than pre and will have a significant advantage over their competitors - namely they've got a stadium at a ridiculous knock down price. I'm sure Yeovil, Gillingham and Brighton would love a £30m stadium for a third of the price. Brighton have just comitted £90m to their new one. That's why there is a ten point penalty to offset our considerable advantage against our competitors*. But you people just won't listen. Just keep whinging about fairness because Southampton are the most hard done by football club in the world. *oh, one more thing - the fact that would be stronger post admin was the reason king divs like Alpine and SaintRichmond were screaming for us to go into admin NOW NOW NOW last season. They seem to have forgotten that argument now. Edited 24 June, 2009 by CB Fry
Saint Keith Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 1. The FL's decision is entirely lawful on technical grounds. maybe, but everyone has a right of appeal. if that is taken away, we might as well all move to iraq 2. The FL's decision is fair on moral grounds. maybe, but that has nothing to do with law 3. The right to "appeal" against a decision that would be upheld on "appeal" is worthless. impossible to predict the outcome of any legal case, its always a risk to both parties 4. Even if we waive our right to appeal in our membership contract we can still go to arbitration under Paragraph K of the FA Rules, as Leeds did in similar circumstances. 5. If we do go to arbitration, our claim to have the points deduction overturned will not be allowed. thats rubbish 6. If the "appeal" issue is so important why was it not addressed with FL at the outset rather than at the end of the exclusivity period? it probably was, but has only just become public knowledge as an agreement could not be reach. or they were unware of the Non Appeal clause until the fL chucked it in late 7. Any further delay in preparing for next season will probably cost us 10 points anyway. Probably so, but no one is forcing pinnacle to give in to an abuse of power. they have the right to walk away if they deem the terms too onerous, either for them , or the club It's obvious that the "appeal" is issue is a red herring which has been introduced either: (a) to sort out more fundamental problems with the deal or (b) because Pinnacle haven't raised the money. probably thats ****** So what do you kick Mr L - ass or tyres? ...
Pancake Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Sometimes I really do wonder if some pf the posters on here actually support SFC at all. The points deduction may or may not be fair; that I don't know about as I am not clued up on the whole ins and outs. But what I am sure of is that I personally fell that the FL asking us to sign away our right to appeal against the points deduction is out of order. IF Pinnacle feel that THEY have sufficient evidence to argue their case, why not let them? It isn't about if the points deduction is correct or not, as so far we have only heard the official FL view on this (that the points are fair). What we haven't heard officially are teh reasons that Pinnacle believe that the points are unfair. Without the "right to appeal" we will, probably, never hear this and therefore will not be able to make full judgement. So, I ask you Fry and Engine; why do you feel that SFC should have their right to appeal taken away? Im not talking about IF the point deduction is fair or not, Im talking about the fairness of taking away the right to appeal.
trousers Posted 24 June, 2009 Posted 24 June, 2009 Saints 2009 will be a new company/club applying to join the Football league. When was that 'announced'? I always understood it would be the existing (solvent) Football Club that the new owner will be buying. Where does a 'new club' come into it. Advanced apologies if I've missed a statement to this effect somewhere...
Beer Engine Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Posted 24 June, 2009 So, I ask you Fry and Engine; why do you feel that SFC should have their right to appeal taken away? Im not talking about IF the point deduction is fair or not, Im talking about the fairness of taking away the right to appeal. Hi Pancake My feeling is that our right of appeal is not being "taken away". It's more a case that we are trading it away in return for Saints newco being granted (a) league membership without having to treck up through the non-league pyramid (b) automatic promotion to League 1 © the aquisition of the old club's assets at a fraction of their market price (d) the ability to trade at the expense of the old company's unpaid creditors. I have to say that it seems like a very good deal for us.
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