The "Appeal" issue is a red herring ...

[saintjay77]

Don't you think SLH made a humoungous mistake when they seriously thought they could dump SLH into admin and not get points deducted.

 

The league haven't made a bloody mistake, and don't you think the FL "checked their decision" again on Monday and didn't they "check their decision" when they sent their accountants in after the first week or so.

 

Stop going on about dictators, for christ's sake. Don't any of you work in the real world?

 

Barclays put SLH into admin did they not?

 

The club made huge mistakes which got us into the position where we were put into admin for sure but I dont think the decission was ours. It certainly wasnt reported that way at the time.

 

On the face of it I look at SLH and SFC as being near enough the same thing. SLH wouldnt have existed on the Radio station and insurance company alone so SFC and SLH are one in the same thing to me and probably to most.

 

The accountant was sent in to look at SFC's accounts which Fry gave him full access too. He was refused access to stuff which was outside of his remit and he went back to the FL in a strop saying he couldnt tell because he couldnt see everything. The FL decided on that info that we are all 1 and the same thing.

 

Fry and his legal team, Pinnacle and there legal team, SFC and there legal team all believe that SFC and SLH are legally seperate companies and believe they can argue there case in an appeal.

 

If the FL are so sure on there decission why dont they just give the appeal and rule that they think they were right all alone?

 

The appeal will just show if there has been a mistake or not. The league can still say that the football club was the cause of SLH going into admin and give us the points anyway. Its there league and there rules as they want to make them.

[trousers]

Sorry, my understanding is that at present SFC are in the Football League, and are currently at -10 points in League One. As long as SLH does not go into liquidation, SFC will start the League season in League One and can continue all season if needs be. if SLH go into liquidation before the "asset" of SFC is sold, the they (the club) cease to exist and drop out of the FL structure.

 

Indeed. If, as some are saying, that technically the Football League does not recognise the existence of the current PRE-TAKEOVER 'version' of Southampton Football Club then why have they included SFC in their starting league tables and fixture list for next year?

 

Why does a change of ownership affect the status of the club in the eyes of the Football League?

[Graffito]

They are in a trading position. This is a negotiation about membership of the league and is being carried out in a similar fashion to a trading negotiation or a union dispute etc. Lots of legalese but a fundemental argument.

 

At the moment SFC is not in the league.

 

The FL extreme position is to refuse us entry.

 

SFC's extreme position would be to then sue the league for restraint of trade.

 

Neither of those are likely to happen, but the bits in between might be, as with Leeds (look up Um Pahar's posts on it).

 

The bits in between hover around:

 

Entry granted to L2

 

to

 

Entry granted to L1 with -10

 

and including

 

Yes, you can appeal, but find another league to play in in the meantime.

 

 

and entry granted on condition that the points will not be contested, the books are clean, football debts covered, fit and proper person test etc.

 

 

So it is something to trade if we want to be in the League next season.

 

Not illegal whatsoever, just a negotiation.

 

 

Entry granted to L1 with -10 is our best bet and we should bite their hand off.

 

We need the league to grant the golden share, that's clear, but I'm not aware that the league has threatened demotion to lower leagues if we don't waive the right to appeal, though that may implied by precedent. It's the bits in between that hover around as you put it that make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions here because all we can do is look at precedent set in similar but not identical cases. We don't know all the facts.

[trousers]

Barclays put SLH into admin did they not?

 

The club made huge mistakes which got us into the position where we were put into admin for sure but I dont think the decission was ours. It certainly wasnt reported that way at the time.

 

No, it was reported that way...on the formal Stock Exchange announcment at the time....it stated categorically that the SLH board appointed the administrators.

 

Yes, Barclays withdrew their support but the actual act of going into administration was an action taken by the SLH board.

[saintjay77]

We need the league to grant the golden share, that's clear, but I'm not aware that the league has threatened demotion to lower leagues if we don't waive the right to appeal, though that may implied by precedent. It's the bits in between that hover around as you put it that make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions here because all we can do is look at precedent set in similar but not identical cases. We don't know all the facts.

 

thing is the previous clubs that have been put in this position have all beleived they were harshly treated in some way or another and the league bend there rules to suit each case.

 

Derby had pretty much the same situation as us and got away with a new owner and no points deduction. West ham have done the same thing. yet Luton and Leeds and now us have all been treated differently.

 

Its a bit like a lie IMO. it starts off small but its not long before more lies are told to cover the original and it will keep going untill it gets out of control.

 

The League acted one way for one situation which may not have been the fairest solution and as such future problems of a similar standing have to follow suit. as each situation is different a new version of events has to be created and the mess gets bigger. Now another new set of events is being created with us in that we can prove we are in the right but are getting treated like we are in the wrong. What happened to the next club that goes down this route? It will be pot luck as to if the league will punish them or not and they cant base it on previous situations as they are all conflicting.

[Pancake]

Derby had pretty much the same situation as us and got away with a new owner and no points deduction. West ham have done the same thing. yet Luton and Leeds and now us have all been treated differently.

 

Derby was prior to the penalty points rule coming in and West Ham are looked after by the PL not the FL.

[saintjay77]

No, it was reported that way...on the formal Stock Exchange announcment at the time....it stated categorically that the SLH board appointed the administrators.

 

Yes, Barclays withdrew their support but the actual act of going into administration was an action taken by the SLH board.

 

Ah fair enough.

 

But if SLH was not in trouble and SFC was, could the administration process have been refused?

[Beer Engine]

Or, shock horror, we as fans are not aware of all the inner workings.

 

Maybe, just maybe, the FL discussions are wider than just the -10 points? What's the ramifaction of taking the appeal away?

 

I don't know what they are, hey there might be none, but i reckon there's a fair chance the conversation is more about if we start in League 1 on -27 or in League 2 on 0. If that's the conversation, i can appreciate why it's taking a bit longer to iron out.

 

I originally thought that the 10 points deduction was done and dusted so the last minute argie bargie must about trying to get the FL to cap their sanctions at 10 points regardless of the eventual fate of SLH plc.

 

Obviously, that would be worth arguing about.

 

But one of Tony Lynam's updates said:

 

"I want to make something crystal clear. I have NOT ASKED for a decision about the 10 point deduction. I have met every condition within the Football Leagues own rules, and thus should be allowed the right to an appeal after our takeover is complete, should I wish to take that action.

 

As I have explained to countless people involved - detach yourself from the situation, and lose your emotional ties for a moment, and just ask yourself one question. “If I am being asked to waive my rights to an appeal against a decision, how confident are the people who made that decision that it was the correct decision in the first place?”

 

Although this point is expressed in opaque language, I read it to mean that the issue IS the 10 points deduction....?

 

Anyone?

[Frank's cousin]

NOt sure if this has already been pointed out: We should (and Pinnacle should) maybe forget about the right to appeal. Whatever the legalities or otherwise, whatever the moral arguments etc, the waiver of the right of appeal is there for the GREATER good when you think about it. Court proceedings and appeals can take months and escalate to the high court/COAS etc... if any club were to appeal, it has the potential to impact on the whole league with clubs not being certain of their final position if the conclusions of cases are not yet known at seasons end... it can throw the whole thing into termoil....I think in this case, it may well be that the FL were not totally sure of their own rules - afterall they are complicated and seem to have been ammended everytime someone finds a loophole so hardly perhaps the most water tight of regulations, BUT that should not be the issue - what we need to do is look at the bigger picture as the FL is doing - legally we may have a case, morally we dont and so given the impact of an appeal, think we should take our medicine and move on - and maintain the moral highground rather than looking like whinging ****s.

Edited 24 June, 2009 by Frank's cousin

[Beer Engine]

NOt sure if this has already been pointed out: We should (and Pinnacle should) maybe forget about tehright to appeal. Whatever the legalities or otherwise' date=' whatever teh morakl arguments etc, teh waiver of the right of appeal is there for the GREATER good when you think about it. Court proceedings and appeals can take months and escalate to teh hjigh court/COAS etc... if any club were to appeal, it has teh potentail to impact on teh whole league with clubs not being certain of their final position if the conclusions of cases are not yet know at seasons end... it can throw teh whole thing into termoil....I think in this case, it may well be that the FL were not totally sure of their own rules - afterall they are complicated and seem to have been ammended everytime someone finds a loophole so hardly perhaps the most water tight of regulations, BUT that should not be the issue - what we need to do is look at the bigger picture as the FL is doing - legally we may have a case, morally we dont and so given the impact of an appeal, think we should take our medicine and move on - and mainatain the moral highground rather than looking like whinging ****s.[/quote']

 

That's a ****ing good point Frank but you really ought to get that keyboard looked at ...

[Graffito]

I originally thought that the 10 points deduction was done and dusted so the last minute argie bargie must about trying to get the FL to cap their sanctions at 10 points regardless of the eventual fate of SLH plc.

 

Obviously, that would be worth arguing about.

 

But one of Tony Lynam's updates said:

 

"I want to make something crystal clear. I have NOT ASKED for a decision about the 10 point deduction. I have met every condition within the Football Leagues own rules, and thus should be allowed the right to an appeal after our takeover is complete, should I wish to take that action.

 

As I have explained to countless people involved - detach yourself from the situation, and lose your emotional ties for a moment, and just ask yourself one question. “If I am being asked to waive my rights to an appeal against a decision, how confident are the people who made that decision that it was the correct decision in the first place?”

 

Although this point is expressed in opaque language, I read it to mean that the issue IS the 10 points deduction....?

 

Anyone?

 

I think it's fairly clear. He's saying the issue for Pinnacle is the right of appeal.

[Window Cleaner]

I originally thought that the 10 points deduction was done and dusted so the last minute argie bargie must about trying to get the FL to cap their sanctions at 10 points regardless of the eventual fate of SLH plc.

 

Obviously, that would be worth arguing about.

 

But one of Tony Lynam's updates said:

 

"I want to make something crystal clear. I have NOT ASKED for a decision about the 10 point deduction. I have met every condition within the Football Leagues own rules, and thus should be allowed the right to an appeal after our takeover is complete, should I wish to take that action.

 

As I have explained to countless people involved - detach yourself from the situation, and lose your emotional ties for a moment, and just ask yourself one question. “If I am being asked to waive my rights to an appeal against a decision, how confident are the people who made that decision that it was the correct decision in the first place?”

 

Although this point is expressed in opaque language, I read it to mean that the issue IS the 10 points deduction....?

 

Anyone?

 

I don't know, to me the issue is creating a perpetual state of anguish which when resolved will lead to 20K+ fans throwing themselves into line at the ST office thus banking a bumper windfall and recovering 30+% of the monies paid out immediately.The fact that we don't actually have a side and that football starts again in a couple of weeks is totally pushed aside.

[saintjay77]

Derby was prior to the penalty points rule coming in and West Ham are looked after by the PL not the FL.

 

I know but my point is there are several versions of the same events and one way or another the FL created the rules to cope with such events.

 

We act it seems within the rules of these events and the FL change tac. So it doesnt bode well for anyone else that may find themselves in this situation.

 

IMO the FL need to put this to bed ASAP.

 

no doubt there are clubs that are run by a holding company which will get into trouble via other means and it not be the Football clubs fault. These clubs need to be protected which is what the league rules are supposed to be there for. Those rules do not cover clubs that drain the holding company and are the cause of the administration so by the letter of the rules we should be in the clear yet are getting nailed.

 

The league could hold an appeal and decide that we are in the right but in the spirit of the league and respect to other clubs rules are adjusted to close the loop hole and we get the -10 without the need for a CVA.

 

Im sure this wouldnt be hard to do and the league would be covered for future clubs entering into this kind of situation.

 

We get a punnishment which i doubt many would argue we deserve and the league save face and are set to continue with the support of all clubs.

[Beer Engine]

I think it's fairly clear. He's saying the issue for Pinnacle is the right of appeal.

 

Yes - the right to appeal against the decision to deduct 10 points? That's how I read it too - but I'm starting to doubt my own sanity!

[Frank's cousin]

That's a ****ing good point Frank but you really ought to get that keyboard looked at ...

 

Sorry just edited the original to sort out the typos...well most of them ;-)

[Beer Engine]

The league could hold an appeal and decide that we are in the right but in the spirit of the league and respect to other clubs rules are adjusted to close the loop hole and we get the -10 without the need for a CVA.

 

Im sure this wouldnt be hard to do and the league would be covered for future clubs entering into this kind of situation.

 

.

 

It's not about the right to appeal to the Football League - there is only one ground on which to appeal to the FL relating to "Force Majeure" which we do not fulfil and anyway the time limit for lodging an appeal passed ages ago.

 

It's about us waiving any right we may have to apply to a tribunal other than the FL(arbitration panel/high court etc) to have the FL's decision overturned or annulled.

[Beer Engine]

Sorry just edited the original to sort out the typos...well most of them ;-)

 

Don't worry - my keyboard's a bit doggy too ..

[Frank's cousin]

I suspect that the right to appeal issue is really at the end of the day an issue for the backer - afterall its is their money and their say... This leads me to SPECULATE that teh backers are looking for a RAPID return to the CCC, possibly to minimise any underwriting of budget defficit as quickly as possible? I dont have an issue if this is teh case, but Would rather see an honest statemnet form the backer along the lines of only being prepared to support the deal if we can overturn the -10 points. I might not agree with that but would respect their right to put in whatever clauses they want - afterall its their 15 mil +

 

Ultimately As this suggests I dont think its about rights - but about overturning te -10 points to facilitate a better cahnce of an instant return to the CCC.

[Evo]

but I'm starting to doubt my own sanity!

 

It happens to everyone that hangs around this forum for a while!!!

 

Going off on a tangent here (ooh err), how do players blatantly cheating on the pitch fit into this moral discussion? Is it perhaps accepted as OK because they all do it?

 

I'm not trying to **** stir here, it's a point that has been spinning in my head for a few days.

[Sheff Saint]

Yes - the right to appeal against the decision to deduct 10 points? That's how I read it too - but I'm starting to doubt my own sanity!

 

And that might be the case.

 

But i'm hopeful that if a few geeks on an internet forum can work out 10 points isn't as important as actually having any sort of club, it leaves two options.

 

One is that by wiaving the right of appeal we leave ourselves open to further point sancations that would not be 'fair' or 'moral' (whatever your definition...)

 

The other is that this is all a smokescreen cos they're getting cold feet.

 

In general (thou not with the Dutch experiment last year i hasten to add) I'm a look on the bright side kind of person so i'm assuming/hoping the wrangglings with the FL are more complex then we know about, or can be communicated about (given the NDAs).

 

I truly hope i'm right.

[Beer Engine]

Going off on a tangent here (ooh err), how do players blatantly cheating on the pitch fit into this moral discussion? Is it perhaps accepted as OK because they all do it?

 

I'm not trying to **** stir here, it's a point that has been spinning in my head for a few days.

 

Don't know really - suppose if they get caught diving in the penalty area then they get carded and eventually banned for a few games.

 

My pet hate is shirt tugging in the area - it really spoils the game - and seems to have become the norm ...

[smarmy]

It seems to me this could all be a tactic to drive down the price? Surely the longer this goes on, the cheaper we get. Not being in the League this season IS NOT in the interest of Barclays/Aviva etc. If that is it, it's a dangerous game, though, 'cos there'll come a point when Fry just says enough is enough, and sells all the players, the training ground to Pompey, and the stadium to Paul Allen to build a marina development ...

[saintjay77]

It's not about the right to appeal to the Football League - there is only one ground on which to appeal to the FL relating to "Force Majeure" which we do not fulfil and anyway the time limit for lodging an appeal passed ages ago.

 

It's about us waiving any right we may have to apply to a tribunal other than the FL(arbitration panel/high court etc) to have the FL's decision overturned or annulled.

 

To be fair it doesnt matter what SFC sign to waive any appeal as the right to appeal to a court is a legal right which is open to anyone. The waiver is the right to appeal to the FL IMO. If I enter into a deal with you and sign a waiver that says I cant go to court to appeal our agreement. How much do you think the court will pay attention to what is basically a bribe?

 

The administrators or perspective new owners may have missed a trick by missing the 7 days but I understand that they want that 7 days to be ignored so they can present there case to the FL.

 

Pinnacle have more chance of getting somewhere if the FL hear there appeal as although courts will ignore the waiver they will also see that the FL is a members club and can pretty much set what ever rules it wants.

[saintjay77]

It happens to everyone that hangs around this forum for a while!!!

 

Going off on a tangent here (ooh err), how do players blatantly cheating on the pitch fit into this moral discussion? Is it perhaps accepted as OK because they all do it?

 

I'm not trying to **** stir here, it's a point that has been spinning in my head for a few days.

 

Players going down in the penalty box at the slightest of touches to win a penalty is within the rules although it stinks when its against you?

 

SFC have done things within the rules stated by the FL so should still be treated by those same rules.

 

We and everyone else doesnt like it so the league should change the rules to prevent it happening.

 

Untill they do they should stick to there own rules.

[Whitey Grandad]

It happens to everyone that hangs around this forum for a while!!!

 

Going off on a tangent here (ooh err), how do players blatantly cheating on the pitch fit into this moral discussion? Is it perhaps accepted as OK because they all do it?

 

I'm not trying to **** stir here, it's a point that has been spinning in my head for a few days.

All cheating is immoral.

 

'And when the One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name.....'

[saintjay77]

And that might be the case.

 

But i'm hopeful that if a few geeks on an internet forum can work out 10 points isn't as important as actually having any sort of club, it leaves two options.

 

One is that by wiaving the right of appeal we leave ourselves open to further point sancations that would not be 'fair' or 'moral' (whatever your definition...)

 

The other is that this is all a smokescreen cos they're getting cold feet.

 

In general (thou not with the Dutch experiment last year i hasten to add) I'm a look on the bright side kind of person so i'm assuming/hoping the wrangglings with the FL are more complex then we know about, or can be communicated about (given the NDAs).

 

I truly hope i'm right.

 

Personally I would be OK with us having a new owner and a future starting on -10 but can understand the right to try and fight the decission as to me it seems the league rules are at fault rather than the club.

 

Dont get me wrong as I the club are as guilty as sin but like the cheating players coment above, if its within the rules then its fair and if that stinks then its the leagues job to change it.

[Sheff Saint]

Personally I would be OK with us having a new owner and a future starting on -10 but can understand the right to try and fight the decission as to me it seems the league rules are at fault rather than the club.

 

Dont get me wrong as I the club are as guilty as sin but like the cheating players coment above, if its within the rules then its fair and if that stinks then its the leagues job to change it.

 

And personally i agree.

 

And i wouldn't want too much fight over the ten points if it starts to affect preperations for next season.

 

But if it meant a few more days with no deal but then we got start on 0, i'd take that.

 

If it means a few more days and we start on -10, then so be it, worth a try.

 

If it means we don't get a new owner cos of the -10, well, i hope and believe that not to be the case.

 

I just worry that somewhere along the line this -15/-17 point issue is going to come along and i bet the outputs of the -10 point discussions impact that decision, which is why the delay.

[Frank's cousin]

 

I just worry that somewhere along the line this -15/-17 point issue is going to come along and i bet the outputs of the -10 point discussions impact that decision, which is why the delay.

 

Cant happen - we are safe from that why? Because if the creditors have agreed to the 15 mil and all debts cleared - this is in effect a CVA between SLH and the creditors which will satisfy FL rules - as in tehir own statements we are inextricably linked and the same entity. If theye were later to dock further points by suggesting that SFC did not have a CVA in place, it would contradict their original penalty by now claiming SFC and SLH were NOT linked... etc... so as long as SFC stays debt free in future its not an issue.

[Pancake]

Cant happen - we are safe from that why? Because if the creditors have agreed to the 15 mil and all debts cleared - this is in effect a CVA between SLH and the creditors which will satisfy FL rules - as in tehir own statements we are inextricably linked and the same entity. If theye were later to dock further points by suggesting that SFC did not have a CVA in place' date=' it would contradict their original penalty by now claiming SFC and SLH were NOT linked... etc... so as long as SFC stays debt free in future its not an issue.[/quote']

 

Sorry Frank, but we dont know that. See my other thread on "If/when Fry Sells..." If Pinnacle only buy SFC and SMS, Fry et al still have to sell Staplewood and Jacksons before they can try to settle with the creditors. That could drag on for years with the caveats on the use for Staplewood and the covenant (?) on Jcksons Farm. SLH might NEVER get a CVA... and as the FL say that SLH and SFC are linked, then if SLH never get the CVA, it would tar SFC with the same brush.

[saintjay77]

And personally i agree.

 

And i wouldn't want too much fight over the ten points if it starts to affect preperations for next season.

 

But if it meant a few more days with no deal but then we got start on 0, i'd take that.

 

If it means a few more days and we start on -10, then so be it, worth a try.

 

If it means we don't get a new owner cos of the -10, well, i hope and believe that not to be the case.

 

I just worry that somewhere along the line this -15/-17 point issue is going to come along and i bet the outputs of the -10 point discussions impact that decision, which is why the delay.

 

I would be happy with all of that. And you last point I think is why Pinnacle are battling now. They probably know that the League wont back down on the -10 points but by fighting now they are likly to get a resolution of -10 points and that it. Rather than accepting it and then the league popping up with the - extra points due to SLH not acceptabley pleasing all its creditors.

 

1 way or anyother the league have to agree that we are not linked with SLH like they once believed but we still should have the punishment that fits the situation.

 

If they can agree on the wording that satifys both parties then we will have new owners. If they cant then any other possible buyers will get to the same stumbling block.

 

Fry will have to sell the club at some point and it will be based on us recieving up to -25 points which puts the value of the club much lower and makes a greater risk of us not satisfying our creditors.

 

A big catch 22 that needs to be sorted ASAP

Edited 24 June, 2009 by saintjay77

[aintforever]

Sorry Frank, but we dont know that. See my other thread on "If/when Fry Sells..." If Pinnacle only buy SFC and SMS, Fry et al still have to sell Staplewood and Jacksons before they can try to settle with the creditors. That could drag on for years with the caveats on the use for Staplewood and the covenant (?) on Jcksons Farm. SLH might NEVER get a CVA... and as the FL say that SLH and SFC are linked, then if SLH never get the CVA, it would tar SFC with the same brush.

 

I expect Fry will sell all of SLH's assets at the same time, there's no point SLH existing if all it does is own a turnip field near Hedge End.

 

Fry will get the creditors agreement's on however it is all divided up, otherwise there will be no football club sale and the creditors will get peanuts.

 

That's my amateurish take on it.

[ItchenRob]

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 ..

 

I am not sure how you can effectively say (if you are) that the regulations are deficient and bombproof at the same time. I also think you are reading in in too many assumptions about what constitutes the "Club". Also, I thought it was accepted knowledge that a QC acting for the Administrator thought we were 70% likely to succeed with an appeal. I think its arguable either way and would tend to agree with the 70% view

[Beer Engine]

I am not sure how you can effectively say (if you are) that the regulations are deficient and bombproof at the same time. I also think you are reading in in too many assumptions about what constitutes the "Club". Also, I thought it was accepted knowledge that a QC acting for the Administrator thought we were 70% likely to succeed with an appeal. I think its arguable either way and would tend to agree with the 70% view

 

The regulations could have been drafted better in the sense that they make no specific provision for a situation where the club is owned by a group of companies. That, however, is by no means fatal to the FL's application of their regulations. As you doubtless know from your legal training, the Courts will bend over backwards to give business efficacy to contractual documents regardless of shortcomings with the drafting.

 

I don't think that fact that a QC has apparently (and wrongly in my opinion) rated the chances of an "appeal" being successful at 70% should dissuade you from trying to think the matter through for yourself.

 

After all, your solicitor's training presumably covered some law and, as you know, different QC's often come up with conflicting opinions on the same facts and issues. They are not Gods.

[Frank's cousin]

Sorry Frank, but we dont know that. See my other thread on "If/when Fry Sells..." If Pinnacle only buy SFC and SMS, Fry et al still have to sell Staplewood and Jacksons before they can try to settle with the creditors. That could drag on for years with the caveats on the use for Staplewood and the covenant (?) on Jcksons Farm. SLH might NEVER get a CVA... and as the FL say that SLH and SFC are linked, then if SLH never get the CVA, it would tar SFC with the same brush.

 

HI

 

To counter that if this was thecase we would not get a license to start with so again cant happen - we will either get a license because the SLH have agreed terms (which means no future penalties) with creditors or we wont and the -10 points will be immaterial anyway...

[CLOTH EARS]

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.

 

 

I think a majority of Saints fans would accept the 10 points but will it stop at 10 points? What makes you think that we wont get deducted anymore points? My gut feeling is that the league will hit us with another 15 points deduction for not coming out of admin with a CVA. Pinnacle know this, hence the reason they wont waive away their right to appeal ,but then the argument is that it wasn't the football club that was in administration. If we waive away our right to appeal then they deduct us another 15 points we are effectively accepting relegation to League 2 !

[Beer Engine]

I think a majority of Saints fans would accept the 10 points but will it stop at 10 points? What makes you think that we wont get deducted anymore points? My gut feeling is that the league will hit us with another 15 points deduction for not coming out of admin with a CVA. Pinnacle know this, hence the reason they wont waive away their right to appeal ,but then the argument is that it wasn't the football club that was in administration. If we waive away our right to appeal then they deduct us another 15 points we are effectively accepting relegation to League 2 !

 

 

I got the impression from one of TL's updates that the dispute between Pinnacle and the FL concerned the club's right to appeal against the 10 point deduction.

 

If,as seems likely, it goes further than that and into the question of the CVA and a possible 15 points deduction then things get a bit more complicated.

 

Let's assume that the FL were right and that Southampton Football Club comprises 3 or more inexextricably linked companies. Following that line of reasoning, it appears likely that the club could face a further 15 points deduction if SLH plc does not emerge from administration with a CVA. This could be the case regardless of which company owns the "new" club.

 

That is roughly what happened with Leeds - the original Leeds company could not come up with a voluntary agreement that its creditors (HMRC in particular as I recall) were happy with - and the absence of a CVA prompted the FL to offer new Leeds the choice of relegation (to League 2) as per the FL sporting sanctions or to accept the FL's discretionary offer of no relegation but a 15 point deduction instead.

 

New Leeds signed a compromise agreement agreeing to League 1 and 15 points deduction, waiving any rights they may otherwise have had to overturn the points deduction (as is perfectly normal in settlement agreements) - appealed to an arbitration panel under the FA Rules anyway - and lost.

[RinNY]

NOt sure if this has already been pointed out: We should (and Pinnacle should) maybe forget about the right to appeal. Whatever the legalities or otherwise' date=' whatever the moral arguments etc, the waiver of the right of appeal is there for the GREATER good when you think about it. Court proceedings and appeals can take months and escalate to the high court/COAS etc... if any club were to appeal, it has the potential to impact on the whole league with clubs not being certain of their final position if the conclusions of cases are not yet known at seasons end... it can throw the whole thing into termoil....I think in this case, it may well be that the FL were not totally sure of their own rules - afterall they are complicated and seem to have been ammended everytime someone finds a loophole so hardly perhaps the most water tight of regulations, BUT that should not be the issue - what we need to do is look at the bigger picture as the FL is doing - legally we may have a case, morally we dont and so given the impact of an appeal, think we should take our medicine and move on - and maintain the moral highground rather than looking like whinging ****s.[/quote']

 

 

You're right: why should there be any right of appeal in this or any country? I mean, no-one would decide on a punishment without good reason to do so, would they? Why don't people who have had a judgement against them just shut up and take it like a man? In fact, why bother with courts and trials and rules at all? Let's just give the "powers that be" the right to do as they see fit: after all, if they were not trustworthy they wouldn't be in power, would they?

 

I'm sorry, FC, as a rule I respect your views, but in this case you are talking total nonsense! The FL has and operates under specific rules and procedures. One of those rules establishes a right of appeal against punishments. For them to say to a club that if it goes into administration it loses 10 points but can appeal the penalty, but whoever takes the club out of administration can only do so on condition of giving up the right of appeal, is blatantly absurd and unfair. If they don't want appeals, remove that rule, and see how their decisions will stand up to legal scrutiny. The appeal process is there for a reason, and to short-cut it the way they are doing, to give with one hand and immediately take away again with the other, is so OBVIOUSLY unfair that I am flummoxed that anyone could possibly not see that.

 

I think the FL needs badly to be sued and subjected to a genuinely neutral legal scrutiny, but that probably will not happen. Unfortuantely, we may be stuck with having to let this crowd just write and rewrite and reinterpret their rules on the fly however they see fit. But let no-one pretend that there is anything fair, honest, just, or right about it!

[saintjay77]

You're right: why should there be any right of appeal in this or any country? I mean, no-one would decide on a punishment without good reason to do so, would they? Why don't people who have had a judgement against them just shut up and take it like a man? In fact, why bother with courts and trials and rules at all? Let's just give the "powers that be" the right to do as they see fit: after all, if they were not trustworthy they wouldn't be in power, would they?

 

I'm sorry, FC, as a rule I respect your views, but in this case you are talking total nonsense! The FL has and operates under specific rules and procedures. One of those rules establishes a right of appeal against punishments. For them to say to a club that if it goes into administration it loses 10 points but can appeal the penalty, but whoever takes the club out of administration can only do so on condition of giving up the right of appeal, is blatantly absurd and unfair. If they don't want appeals, remove that rule, and see how their decisions will stand up to legal scrutiny. The appeal process is there for a reason, and to short-cut it the way they are doing, to give with one hand and immediately take away again with the other, is so OBVIOUSLY unfair that I am flummoxed that anyone could possibly not see that.

 

I think the FL needs badly to be sued and subjected to a genuinely neutral legal scrutiny, but that probably will not happen. Unfortuantely, we may be stuck with having to let this crowd just write and rewrite and reinterpret their rules on the fly however they see fit. But let no-one pretend that there is anything fair, honest, just, or right about it!

 

Trouble with anyone sueing the league would leave the club open to all sorts of problems down the line. As the league is a members club rules can be changed and made to suit as they see fit so life could be made very difficult if the league chooses to go that way. I doubt anyone will try and sue the league unless they have absolutly nothing to lose.

 

Say they kick us out and we start up a new league. We decide to stick with the new league no matter what happens and sue the league. we win and flip the bird because we are not coming back anyway. We lose and we are still not going back. I know this is very far fetched but there is IMO a very limited number of options that anyone would bother sueing the league for.

 

What is more likly is that Pinnacle try to get the league and themselves to agree on sanctions and changes that cover both us and the league and also close any loopholes so the league dont come a croper again. All sides will need to come out of things looking like they have won or else the small ripples created now will turn into tidal waves later on.

[saintjay77]

I got the impression from one of TL's updates that the dispute between Pinnacle and the FL concerned the club's right to appeal against the 10 point deduction.

 

If,as seems likely, it goes further than that and into the question of the CVA and a possible 15 points deduction then things get a bit more complicated.

 

Let's assume that the FL were right and that Southampton Football Club comprises 3 or more inexextricably linked companies. Following that line of reasoning, it appears likely that the club could face a further 15 points deduction if SLH plc does not emerge from administration with a CVA. This could be the case regardless of which company owns the "new" club.

 

That is roughly what happened with Leeds - the original Leeds company could not come up with a voluntary agreement that its creditors (HMRC in particular as I recall) were happy with - and the absence of a CVA prompted the FL to offer new Leeds the choice of relegation (to League 2) as per the FL sporting sanctions or to accept the FL's discretionary offer of no relegation but a 15 point deduction instead.

 

New Leeds signed a compromise agreement agreeing to League 1 and 15 points deduction, waiving any rights they may otherwise have had to overturn the points deduction (as is perfectly normal in settlement agreements) - appealed to an arbitration panel under the FA Rules anyway - and lost.

 

I got the idea that its about the -10 points now but that Pinnacle want that delt with in a way that there is no further come back down the line.

 

Its almost like Pinnacle are haggling with the FL. Pinnacle offer the league to drop the points and the league are ready to refuse us into the league. by the time the bartering has been concluded we will be left with -10 and in the league and the FL will leave it at that.

 

Something most of us will take right now I guess.

[sotonswan]

If it is the -15 point exit from CVA that is the issue (and I'd support trying to avoid this), we should have a clue within the next few days. The inability to pay wages satisfies the conditions for SFC to go into admin. (I doubt even the FL would give Saints -10 twice!) Pinnacle can then agree to take over SFC by agreeing a 100p in the £ CVA with the creditors. IANAL but that would seem to dodge the -15. Of course the -10 would stand.

 

If Pinnacle are insistent upon the right to appeal the -10 for SLH entering admin, then one has to wonder if they are willfully refusing to learn from the mistakes of others.

 

I might well insist upon the right to re-arrange the deck-chairs on a sinking ship, but perhaps I should spend my time more profitably launching the lifeboats and radio-ing for help. :/

[AtomicSaint]

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*.

 

I've seen this mentioned several times but can you supply the evidence that the stadium is being purchased at a knock down price or are Pinnicle taking over the mortgage/taking out a new mortgage.

[RinNY]

Trouble with anyone sueing the league would leave the club open to all sorts of problems down the line. As the league is a members club rules can be changed and made to suit as they see fit so life could be made very difficult if the league chooses to go that way. I doubt anyone will try and sue the league unless they have absolutly nothing to lose.

 

Say they kick us out and we start up a new league. We decide to stick with the new league no matter what happens and sue the league. we win and flip the bird because we are not coming back anyway. We lose and we are still not going back. I know this is very far fetched but there is IMO a very limited number of options that anyone would bother sueing the league for.

 

What is more likly is that Pinnacle try to get the league and themselves to agree on sanctions and changes that cover both us and the league and also close any loopholes so the league dont come a croper again. All sides will need to come out of things looking like they have won or else the small ripples created now will turn into tidal waves later on.

 

 

As I said, I doubt the FL will be sued, pretty certainly not by Pinnacle/SFC anyway. But even members clubs are subject to some binding legal rules: they cannot discriminate, and they must operate by the rules and regulations they set for themselves. The FL is quite simply making up the rules as they go along, and ignoring their own written and established regulations to do so. I think you'll find that opens them up, potentially, to very damaging litigation if it's ever in anyone's interesat to pursue such litigation. I am just flabberghasted, actually, at what the FL is doing and getting away with, not just in our case but in several other recent cases where they just seem to do whatever they feel like and f*ck the rules as written!

[sadoldgit]

Starting off 10 points adrift is not helpful, but if you are serious about buying a football club doesn't that just become another short term hurdle, like getting rid of lots of rubbish players? Whether we have a strong legal case or not, SFC effectively ran out of mulah so take the hit and build for the future FFS.

 

We are never going to beat the FL on this on in a month of Sundays.

 

 

 

Pinnacle, if you are serious about our club, prove it and do the bloody deal.

[supaimpy_returns]

Perhaps Pinnancle are asking this

 

If your applying sanctions against the 'old' company and expect the new company to accept them, do you (FL) accept that no further sanctions can be applied against the 'new' company for problems with the 'old' company?

 

reading the Leeds statement it seems the FL wanted to be able to further punish the new Leeds for the faults of the old Leeds.

 

surely all Pinnancle really are seeking is an understanding that the 10 points = a clean slate for SFC?

[saintjay77]

As I said, I doubt the FL will be sued, pretty certainly not by Pinnacle/SFC anyway. But even members clubs are subject to some binding legal rules: they cannot discriminate, and they must operate by the rules and regulations they set for themselves. The FL is quite simply making up the rules as they go along, and ignoring their own written and established regulations to do so. I think you'll find that opens them up, potentially, to very damaging litigation if it's ever in anyone's interesat to pursue such litigation. I am just flabberghasted, actually, at what the FL is doing and getting away with, not just in our case but in several other recent cases where they just seem to do whatever they feel like and f*ck the rules as written!

 

I agree with you and think that if they are going to use a set of rules they need to be clear and they should follow them. I think someone should take them on too but the way they run things at the mo I pitty anyone who does go against them.

 

Its obvious that Pinnacle see a better solution by working nicley nicely with the league rather than sticking to there guns and starting a battle. Personally I think thats more to do with having to continue to work with them once it all gets resolved. They dont seem like the kind of bunch you would want to intentionally P off because they seem to be able to run things the way they want rather than what would normally happen in everyday work places.

 

I just want it to end with us being in the league with a club to support and an owner that wants the same as us.

[CB Fry]

I've seen this mentioned several times but can you supply the evidence that the stadium is being purchased at a knock down price or are Pinnicle taking over the mortgage/taking out a new mortgage.

 

 

Evidence, eh? Let me see now....

 

Christ.

 

We've gone into administration and the adminstrators and potential purchasers of the business have been renogiating with creditors. What do you think has been going on for the last three odd months?

 

Do you honestly think Pinnacle have negotiated with Aviva to pick up the mortgage precisely where SLH left it and just carry on paying the same amount against the same mortgage? Do you think Lynam, Fry and co are absolute idiots?

 

So sorry, I have no "evidence".

 

Actually, I think there was something from Le Tissier or Lynam, I think, very early on, about us being debt free. Can't remember. Doesn't matter though.

 

Take it as read the stadium mortgage will be massively renegotiated, and firmly expect it to be settled via an early lump sum or two.

[Gingeletiss]

Evidence, eh? Let me see now....

 

Christ.

 

We've gone into administration and the adminstrators and potential purchasers of the business have been renogiating with creditors. What do you think has been going on for the last three odd months?

 

Do you honestly think Pinnacle have negotiated with Aviva to pick up the mortgage precisely where SLH left it and just carry on paying the same amount against the same mortgage? Do you think Lynam, Fry and co are absolute idiots?

 

So sorry, I have no "evidence".

 

Actually, I think there was something from Le Tissier or Lynam, I think, very early on, about us being debt free. Can't remember. Doesn't matter though.

 

Take it as read the stadium mortgage will be massively renegotiated, and firmly expect it to be settled via an early lump sum or two.

 

Um......no!!, but they my have agreed to restructure the loan, and have an arrangement to pay of a lump sum, if and when we get back to the premiership. To many people on here speculate, and post theory's, as if it is the absolute truth. Facts are very few and far between

[saintwarwick]

Um......no!!, but they my have agreed to restructure the loan, and have an arrangement to pay of a lump sum, if and when we get back to the premiership. To many people on here speculate, and post theory's, as if it is the absolute truth. Facts are very few and far between

 

That's the problem with most of these threads/posts at the moment, everything based on speculation and not real facts, something we are not privy to at the moment.

[CB Fry]

Um......no!!, but they my have agreed to restructure the loan, and have an arrangement to pay of a lump sum, if and when we get back to the premiership. To many people on here speculate, and post theory's, as if it is the absolute truth. Facts are very few and far between

 

 

....but as you have just admitted, a renegotiation of the loan in our favour is 100% guaranteed to happen.

 

Even if we had to pay the whole lot back in the Prem we'd still be at a massive sporting advantage against lots of other teams in L1 and the CCC, not least Brighton who have a £90m stadium to pay for, and lots of clubs who would love a stadium like ours.

 

I'd like a mortgage holiday until the day I win £100,000 or above on the Premium Bonds. That would put me in a much stronger position than I am now.

 

So a renegotiated stadium debt in our favour is a fact. Cheers.

[Gingeletiss]

....but as you have just admitted, a renegotiation of the loan in our favour is 100% guaranteed to happen.

 

Even if we had to pay the whole lot back in the Prem we'd still be at a massive sporting advantage against lots of other teams in L1 and the CCC, not least Brighton who have a £90m stadium to pay for, and lots of clubs who would love a stadium like ours.

 

I'd like a mortgage holiday until the day I win £100,000 or above on the Premium Bonds. That would put me in a much stronger position than I am now.

 

So a renegotiated stadium debt in our favour is a fact. Cheers.

 

Right......the rules state, that by going into administration, you seek to gain an advantage. What advantage did we gain, by cutting our costs so much including loaning out our best strikers, and getting relegated in the process.............I can't see that we have too much of an advantage!!