Um Bongo Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 (edited) Confirming players have not been paid. Still talking. Says group were on course to take over the club last friday untill the FL came up with their rules. He likes the word 'Ok' Agrees the club is not 'techncially' in admin. Says document put to the group from the FL is illegal and that's why it has not been signed. Edited 25 June, 2009 by Um Bongo
Johnny Shearer Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 I wonder what the hell is written on that document! FL are dooming us at the moment.
Colinjb Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Pinnacle vs the Football League. There can be only one winner, and it won't be us.....
70's Mike Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Confirming players have not been paid. Still talking. Says group were on course to take over the club last friday untill the FL came up with their rules. He likes the word 'Ok' Agrees the club is not 'techncially' in admin. Says document put to the group from the FL is illegal and that's why it has not been signed. so if it is illegal then we are completly ****ed because no one will sign it
thorpie the sinner Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 I am beginning to realise we are ****ed!
Johnny Shearer Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Seems like what others have been saying in regards to the FL saying if we don't sign we can't play in thier league. C**ts.
Polaroid Saint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Since when did legality and legitimancy have anything to do with business? Not in my life time. The world of money and profit is bent, live with it, and the words of Madness; learn how to bend not break the rules etc.
lee_saint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 He came across well. Said that LM had said we could appeal to the Media back in May but has now changed his mind.
Edmonton Saint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Not sounding good is it? The longer this affair drags on, the less chance I can see of us getting taken over.. Part of me is beginning to wonder whether we will even exist next season. Very sad times.
krissyboy31 Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 so if it is illegal then we are completly ****ed because no one will sign it Except MJ!!! Yeah you're right, were fooked!!!
Um Bongo Posted 25 June, 2009 Author Posted 25 June, 2009 I believe he was refering thos this 'Not allowed to appeal' clause on the contract as to being the thing illiegal, so not really anything we didn't know about.
CanadaSaint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Does "players have not been paid" constitute a failure to discharge football-related debt? And does this mean an additional points deduction? I'm pretty sure it's a fundamental breach of contract, which probably makes them all of our players free agents.
JoeShmoe Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Its 'illegal' because t it doesnt allow them the right to appeal the ten points - not that we'd win any appeal anyway Who the hell cares - the FL arent going to back down and if Pinnacle arent either this deal is dead Take the bloody 10 points, like everyone else has, get the club sorted and lets look forward This is looking more and more like a mexican stand off which someone (Pinnacle, the 'buyer' etc) doesn't want to lose and all the while the club is suffering
ottery st mary Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 I am beginning to realise we are ****ed! To answer earlier question Iwas hoping they would pay wages....Not looking like it today at least....Sounds like it will roll for a little while... Starting to look like wishful thinking that it would be sorted by tomorrow. If the contact/licence is illegal who else would proceed....Jacko has no money and the swiss would get similar advice from their briefs..in my oponion. We need a miracle... ANY about:smt115
Rusty Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 He came across well. Said that LM had said we could appeal to the Media back in May but has now changed his mind. The rules say appeal is allowed within 7 days. No appeal was made, so now he wants special treatment?
obelisk Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Time to start rounding up that lynch mob ready to head for FL HQ.
westmidlandsaint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Does "players have not been paid" constitute a failure to discharge football-related debt? And does this mean an additional points deduction? I'm pretty sure it's a fundamental breach of contract, which probably makes them all of our players free agents. This is technically correct our players could all claim breech of contract.
Gingeletiss Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 The rules say appeal is allowed within 7 days. No appeal was made, so now he wants special treatment? FFS (for the hundredth time).......listen to what's been said...read on here as to what's been said. NO.........he doesn't want special treatment, he wants the FL to adhere to their own rules.
JoeShmoe Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 This is technically correct our players could all claim breech of contract. And all the while, Pinnacle, who care about the fans and the cub so much are more interested in not losing an argument they cant win with the FL
Webby Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Oh come one, hasn't everyone been paid late at least once in their lives? I see it as both the right to appeal, AND the signing to say we're in admin as being illegal. They're asking us to sign to confirm something that we're not! The way it is now, I expect us to start in L1 on -25, at least. That's if we still exist. We can write off next season.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Judging by these few posts I'm glad I couldn't be ar5ed to go and turn the TV on to listen to what seems to be another repeat albeit different channel. Is TL appearing on Dave next?
thorpie the sinner Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 If we don't pay wages, it will surely mean SFC is indeed in admin! I can't see anything other than us starting season with -25 points! Doubt it would be Pinnacle though as their figures wouldn't add up. :smt091
trousers Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 FFS (for the hundredth time).......listen to what's been said...read on here as to what's been said. NO.........he doesn't want special treatment, he wants the FL to adhere to their own rules. But if the FL rules say you have to lodge an appeal within 7 days then aren't the FL "adhering to their rules" if they are saying it's too late to appeal? (if indeed that is what they are saying)
krissyboy31 Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Its 'illegal' because t it doesnt allow them the right to appeal the ten points - not that we'd win any appeal anyway Who the hell cares - the FL arent going to back down and if Pinnacle arent either this deal is dead Take the bloody 10 points, like everyone else has, get the club sorted and lets look forward This is looking more and more like a mexican stand off which someone (Pinnacle, the 'buyer' etc) doesn't want to lose and all the while the club is suffering It's not about the 10 points, it's about the FL wanting Pinnacle to agree that SFC are in administration and come out of admin via CVA or accept any sanction they wish to throw at us. Because of the way we are set up, the fact that SFC is just an asset of SLH, it's impossible for us to adhere to these demands (Pinnacle of A N Other).
Wurzel Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Hopefully now it's been said publically SSN, BBC etc might start asking the FL a few questions they would prefer not to answer
trousers Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 If we don't pay wages, it will surely mean SFC is indeed in admin! We (SFC) didn't go into admin when wages weren't paid for 24 hours last month....
CanadaSaint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Well, if this was a game of brinkmanship we appear to have reached the brink.
krissyboy31 Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 But if the FL rules say you have to lodge an appeal within 7 days then aren't the FL "adhering to their rules" if they are saying it's too late to appeal? (if indeed that is what they are saying) I thought it was 21 days? However, Fry did advise the FL that any prospective owner, intended to appeal.
Gingeletiss Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 But if the FL rules say you have to lodge an appeal within 7 days then aren't the FL "adhering to their rules" if they are saying it's too late to appeal? (if indeed that is what they are saying) That wasn't the point I was getting at..........but still, did not Fry say something along the lines, that an appeal had been lodged......perhaps someone will confirm that!!!.
Matthew Le God Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Did he mention where he is intending to go from here?
Nineteen Canteen Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Hopefully now it's been said publically SSN, BBC etc might start asking the FL a few questions they would prefer not to answer What about, why they insist on maintaining a sense of fair play and that the club like the other 71 adhere to the spirit of the rules?
trousers Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Did he mention where he is intending to go from here? Haircut 100?
CanadaSaint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Did he mention where he is intending to go from here? Off to develop a contingency plan, wasn't it?
derry Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 It is probably the catch all clause that not only doesn't allow an appeal but also doesn't allow any appeal to an outside body including the law and I bet the illegal bit is to preclude any legal action.
Window Cleaner Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 We (SFC) didn't go into admin when wages weren't paid for 24 hours last month.... I expect it's something to do with the calendar month having elapsed. Administration is not automatic, unless someone puts you there, you aren't technically in admin. As no-one put in a proceedure it didn't happen.Even then it's not an instant process.
explorer saint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Is it our investor who is insisting on getting the points knocked off so we have a better chance at promotion so he can then get a better and quicker return on his investment. Or is it just the he wants and can afford to go through an appeal process. He may well be saying if I can't appeal then I'm out.
saintgert76 Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Its 'illegal' because t it doesnt allow them the right to appeal the ten points - not that we'd win any appeal anyway Who the hell cares - the FL arent going to back down and if Pinnacle arent either this deal is dead Take the bloody 10 points, like everyone else has, get the club sorted and lets look forward This is looking more and more like a mexican stand off which someone (Pinnacle, the 'buyer' etc) doesn't want to lose and all the while the club is suffering I'm not buying this illegality thing. In essence the Football League is a private members club. Whether we like it or not they can make up their rules as they go along.
CanadaSaint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 It is probably the catch all clause that not only doesn't allow an appeal but also doesn't allow any appeal to an outside body including the law and I bet the illegal bit is to preclude any legal action. But my understanding is that a contract provision requiring one of the parties to do something illegal (or to condone something illegal) is unenforceable. So they could sign the contract and still launch the challenge. Lawyers out there?
once_bitterne Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 It time that Tony, his mystery tag team partner and Pinnacle did the decent thing and pull out of all negotiations. It's been going on for too many weeks now, Lynham has stated he won't sign what the FL require in order to allow us to play in L1 and that is going to change if he gives it a couple more weeks. At least then the way is cleared for someone else to come in, be it the Swiss or even the money men behind Jackson's bid. Thanks for all your efforts Tony. I will always remember your posts on this forum with us much affection as I did the ones of Mikey Wilde. I'm am sure you will always be held in as great esteem here as Micheal Knighton is in the Red half of Manchester. I am only sorry your keepy upies could not be witnessed before a game at SMS.
aintforever Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 I didn't think the Football Leagues rules were a legal issue? Sounds like ****** to me, just buy the ****ing club.
saintjay77 Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 (edited) Technically could SFC apply to go into Administration now? And if they did would the FL then choke at the thought that they had already tried to punish us for something that we are only just applying for? Edited 25 June, 2009 by saintjay77
Third Division South Days Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 It time that Tony, his mystery tag team partner and Pinnacle did the decent thing and pull out of all negotiations. It's been going on for too many weeks now, Lynham has stated he won't sign what the FL require in order to allow us to play in L1 and that is going to change if he gives it a couple more weeks. At least then the way is cleared for someone else to come in, be it the Swiss or even the money men behind Jackson's bid. Thanks for all your efforts Tony. I will always remember your posts on this forum with us much affection as I did the ones of Mikey Wilde. I'm am sure you will always be held in as great esteem here as Micheal Knighton is in the Red half of Manchester. I am only sorry your keepy upies could not be witnessed before a game at SMS. If they do pull out I trust they will throw an almighty lawsuit at the FL.
trousers Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Technically could SFC apply to go into Administration now? And if they did whould the FL then choke at the thought that they had already tried to punish us for something that we are only just applying for? The FL's reaction to SFC going into Admin, in addition to the holding company, would indeed be 'interesting' IMHO
Saints Ward Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Anyone seen the letter posted on the comments section of the Echo website under the "swiss consortium" link. Supposed letter to FL from TL (time posted 13:07pm) Quite interesting if real.
once_bitterne Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 If they do pull out I trust they will throw an almighty lawsuit at the FL. There would be no point in that. The FL are just an organisation running a competition and can control what conditions they set for entry and who are let in. If anyone is unhappy with that all they can do is to excercise their perogative not to enter. I wonder if whoever runs the Blue Sq Conference is equally choosy?
Gingeletiss Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 If they do pull out I trust they will throw an almighty lawsuit at the FL. With the amount they have invested.......I'm sure they will....I would.
OldNick Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 In essence the Football League is a private members club. Whether we like it or not they can make up their rules as they go along. Is that allowed in this day and age? I would have thought that there will be some obscure European law that could mean us getting an injunction granted to stop all fixtures being played until...Now that would make us popular. Did he say he wouldnt buy the club until the FL had waived the contract?
CanadaSaint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 If they do pull out I trust they will throw an almighty lawsuit at the FL. That's probably Pinnacle's only strong card - the ability to sue the FL after failing to conclude an agreement to acquire the Club. It doesn't help us much, though, does it?
derry Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 But my understanding is that a contract provision requiring one of the parties to do something illegal (or to condone something illegal) is unenforceable. So they could sign the contract and still launch the challenge. Lawyers out there? Pm Steve Grant Bill, (copy me his answer). The clause if it's the same as another one from the FA forbids legal action. Can you voluntarily sign away all rights in a disclaimer? I would think it is common in as much as all league clubs will have done it, but not have the situation and the public company in administration that we have. SFC probably had this clause in their licence before it was rescinded.
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