Lynam is On SSN NOW

[aintforever]

Surely if SLH get a CVA it's the same as SFC getting a CVA?

 

I don't get why the addition -15 is an issue if the creditors are happy with the deal?

 

If SFC get kicked out the league the players will all walk for nothing SMS becomes a wasteland and the Creditors get next to nothing.

[Delmary]

If they do pull out I trust they will throw an almighty lawsuit at the FL.

If the deal collapses because of the FL's intransigence then I hope Pinnacle, Admin, creditors and fans will seek redress from the FL authoritites.

[Plumstead_Saint]

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.

I reckon TL means 'unlawful' when he says "illegal", meaning a civil offence rather than a criminal one, with correspondingly lighter punishments.

 

BTW uploading/downloading copyrighted music without paying is unlawful, whereas nicking a CD from HMV is illegal. It's breach of contract versus theft.

 

Even private members clubs have to obey the laws on smoking, alcohol licensing and sexual or racial discrimination.

[Matthew Le God]

Don't know where this has come from but someone posted it on the Echo website.

 

Likely to be made up of course.

 

Dear Mr Mawhinney,

 

We were disappointed at the Football League's decision last Monday to refuse a right of appeal in respect of the 10 point deduction.

 

We are also disappointed that the granting of a licence to play in League 1 is dependent on the club agreeing to waive the right to appeal against the said deduction.

 

Having taken legal advice we understand that, under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, it may be possible to challenge this clause retrospectively.

 

We are further advised that an agreement signed under duress may breach Human Rights legislation.

 

I am sure you will agree that it would be preferable for both parties and for the good of the game at large that these issues be resolved outside of the legal arena.

 

Would you please let us have your response by Friday 26 June. We intend to sign an agreement to allow you to issue the licence at that time.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Tony Lynam

Managing Director

The Pinnacle Group

[saintjay77]

yes we can, then we get the -25 and the FL can claim they were right. but will anyone buy us on -25?

 

I thought we only get the extra -15 if we fail to come out of admin via the CVA. Which I thought was the buit that says all creditors have been satisfied.

 

If we owe 6 mill to the bank and pay off 3 mill to come out of admin the bank would say they are happy with that and we get the cva. They say they are not and we dont get the cva and get a further -15 on top of the -10

 

So as SFC is not technically in Admin we can argue that we shouldnt have the -10 points. If we now go into Admin we will no doubt get -10 points, but we can then give the creditors there money that will in turn satisfy them. They sign the CVA for us and we come out with no more than -10 points.

 

Problem is the FL have already stuck the boot in with the -10 for no reason. Surly they cant just dish out another -10 for going into admin twice can they?

[trousers]

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?

 

How about the 'Unfair Contract Terms Act' ?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770050_en_1

[Ken Tone]

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.

 

Exactly, that is what is in the Leeds agreement isn't it? And IMO Pinnacle's lawyers are saying that is an unreasonable requirement. Don't sign it.

 

Meanwhile the FL will not budge. Surely even Lynam must be beginning to realise this by now.

 

For god's sake even if we appealled there'd be no guarantee we'd win. Once again I suspect Pinnacle's lawyers are saying we'd win on the technicality of SFC v SLH, but I bet the FL's lawyers are saying the opposite.

 

We do not have the time to waste on this. The FL always win. Look what they did to Luton. Does Lynam really think that was fair or even watertight legal?

 

The trouble is he has now gone so public on this that positions have become entrenched. It's going to take one hell of a linguistics expert to find a mutually face-saving form of words to get us out of this impasse. Meanwhile the staff go without wages and the club falls apart.

 

K.

[derry]

Pinnacle wouldn't get the addressee wrong, it is Lord Mawhinney.

[BARCELONASAINT]

People having a go at pinnacle are really missing the point. This issue will affect anyone wanting to buy the club. If they don't accept -25 points then nothing can be signed.

 

The FL are clearly happy to put a football club out of business to try and cover up their own incompetence. Other clubs might be bitter about us trying to get away without deductions, but there's a far more important issue and that's the way the FL is treating its members and harming the game.

 

 

At last someone with an ounce of common sense on here!

Totally agree, the people having a pop at Pinnacle have not got a bloody clue....and thats because they refuse to open their eyes and acknowledge the FL are complete incompetents who are asking us to do something illegal just to cover their own slimey backs.

 

There will either be a compromise between Pinnacle and the FL or we go out of business because every other potential buyer will find themselves in the same boat as Pinnacle!

[JustMike]

how about we stop messing about..it the FLs playground, their rules, even if that does mean making it up as they go along. Put up or shut up and lets please get back to football

[trousers]

How about the 'Unfair Contract Terms Act' ?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770050_en_1

 

 

That's spooky - just seen "Tony Lynam" mention the very same act in the post above....

[saintjay77]

With the amount they have invested.......I'm sure they will....I would.

 

Would it be pinnacle though? I would have thought it would be SFC as the FL effectivly are restricting there options and putting them out of business by not complying to ther own rules.

 

Pinnacle or who ever will be left smarting that they spunked a load of time and dosh down the drain but its SFC who will lose the most and might not have done if the FL kept within there own rules.

[This Charming Man]

Ken Bates signed an agreement when he took over Leeds saying that they wouldn't appeal. He then appealed anyway and lost as the FL are the people that hear the appeal.

 

What the FL could have done to make this easier, is to allow us to appeal, reject it and we all carry on.

[Ken Tone]

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?

 

 

Quite . It might get them their deposit back. But even then they'd probably have more chance of getting that from Fry, on the basis that he misrepresented what was being sold.

 

K.

[JustMike]

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.

 

did he shed any light into the contingency plan..or the outcome of the FL getting back to him this morning?

[derry]

The league were taking legal advice today, I would think that is what is holding things up now, as Pinnacle are awaiting the outcome.

[Gingeletiss]

Exactly, that is what is in the Leeds agreement isn't it? And IMO Pinnacle's lawyers are saying that is an unreasonable requirement. Don't sign it.

 

Meanwhile the FL will not budge. Surely even Lynam must be beginning to realise this by now.

 

For god's sake even if we appealled there'd be no guarantee we'd win. Once again I suspect Pinnacle's lawyers are saying we'd win on the technicality of SFC v SLH, but I bet the FL's lawyers are saying the opposite.

 

We do not have the time to waste on this. The FL always win. Look what they did to Luton. Does Lynam really think that was fair or even watertight legal?

 

The trouble is he has now gone so public on this that positions have become entrenched. It's going to take one hell of a linguistics expert to find a mutually face-saving form of words to get us out of this impasse. Meanwhile the staff go without wages and the club falls apart.

 

K.

 

Ah!!!...........but if it all go's ti ts up, could Pinnacle take out an injunction against the FL..therefore preventing any football being played across all the divisions. I'm sure there is someone who will be able to clarify this??.

[OldNick]

Reading what TL has said has made me slightly more confident not less so. Iam going potty

[Scummer]

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.

 

The way is clear already. Pinnacle aren't in an exclusivity period, there's nothing stopping someone else from bidding.

[Ken Tone]

At last someone with an ounce of common sense on here!

Totally agree, the people having a pop at Pinnacle have not got a bloody clue....and thats because they refuse to open their eyes and acknowledge the FL are complete incompetents who are asking us to do something illegal just to cover their own slimey backs.

 

There will either be a compromise between Pinnacle and the FL or we go out of business because every other potential buyer will find themselves in the same boat as Pinnacle!

 

Nothing Lynam has ever said indicates that there is any danger of more than the -10. Where do you and adriansfc get this from? Every public statement from Lynam has been about the right to appeal the -10. The -25 conspiracy theory has only appeared on this forum as far as I know.

 

K.

[CanadaSaint]

How about the 'Unfair Contract Terms Act' ?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770050_en_1

 

I don't think so, Trousers, because the "Reasonableness Test" wouldn't work in Pinnacle's favour:

 

In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this Part of this Act, section 3 of the M1 Misrepresentation Act 1967 and section 3 of the M2 Misrepresentation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.

 

Pinnacle knew, or should have known, that a points penalty would apply, that the FL would uphold it, and that the right to challenge it would be limited.

[S4INT]

did he shed any light into the contingency plan..or the outcome of the FL getting back to him this morning?

 

Nope - idiot Sky person asked the wrong questions:

Should have been:

 

a) why haven't you payed the wages of everyone if you're sure to take over the club anyway?

b) what is the next stage?

c) what is currently preventing further progress with the deal?

[Gingeletiss]

I don't think so, Trousers, because the "Reasonableness Test" wouldn't work in Pinnacle's favour:

 

 

 

Pinnacle knew, or should have known, that a points penalty would apply, that the FL would uphold it, and that the right to challenge it would be limited.

 

 

Yes, but the hitch occured between the FL and Pinnacle at the last moment....the FL moved the goalposts after all had been agreed.

[Matthew Le God]

 

 

 

Pinnacle knew, or should have known, that a points penalty would apply, that the FL would uphold it, and that the right to challenge it would be limited.

 

Other teams have been allowed to appeal in the past.

[derry]

I don't think so, Trousers, because the "Reasonableness Test" wouldn't work in Pinnacle's favour:

 

 

 

Pinnacle knew, or should have known, that a points penalty would apply, that the FL would uphold it, and that the right to challenge it would be limited.

 

Except the legal advice is saying the league has punished the wrong company because it is not in administration in the eyes of the law.

 

The lawyers on all sides are handling this one.

[saintjay77]

Nothing Lynam has ever said indicates that there is any danger of more than the -10. Where do you and adriansfc get this from? Every public statement from Lynam has been about the right to appeal the -10. The -25 conspiracy theory has only appeared on this forum as far as I know.

 

K.

 

Personally i think they are fighting this battle to make sure there is no chance of further battles down the road. That may include fighting the -15 or anything else. But it seems by the FL's rules that if we accept the -10 for being in admin we are then to provide a CVA to say we have come out of it. If we dont then the -15 is up for grabs.

 

So while the league havent threatend it nor has it been spoken about by TL and co. Its sitting there ready to bite us on the arse should we not cover up.

[Ken Tone]

The league were taking legal advice today, I would think that is what is holding things up now, as Pinnacle are awaiting the outcome.

 

According to Solent and Lynam's own statements on Solent, FL were taking legal advice *yesterday* on what he sent them and were expected to get back to Pinnacle this morning. Even allowing for "lawyers' slippage", I can't think it will be much later than now that Tony Lynam hears from the league. How long can it take to write:

 

Dear Tony,

 

Sod off.

 

love, Brian

 

 

Either pinnacle sign this pm after capitulating, or the swiss or whoever will enter a period of exclusivity very soon IMO.

 

K.

[Gemmel]

I heard the interview and this is a very different Tony Lynam. Far less bullish and sounded flat / exhausted. My personal opnion is that the Pinnnacle takeover is nearly dead.

The bit he refered to as "Illegal" was signing a document that stated "Southampton Football Club" were in administration, not the right to appeal (That's how I understood it anyway.

I take back what i said on aother post today and believe that the FL are trying to push the club into administration, which would effectively cover their arses.

 

Come on the Swiss..... your turn

[trousers]

Nothing Lynam has ever said indicates that there is any danger of more than the -10. Where do you and adriansfc get this from? Every public statement from Lynam has been about the right to appeal the -10. The -25 conspiracy theory has only appeared on this forum as far as I know.

 

K.

 

If it was 'just' about the 10 points, most people on here were/are in favour of biting the bullet and getting on with it. That would be the pragmatic approach.

 

IMHO it has to be about more than 10 points that they are spending a hefty sum on legal fees for

[Ken Tone]

Personally i think they are fighting this battle to make sure there is no chance of further battles down the road. That may include fighting the -15 or anything else. But it seems by the FL's rules that if we accept the -10 for being in admin we are then to provide a CVA to say we have come out of it. If we dont then the -15 is up for grabs.

 

So while the league havent threatend it nor has it been spoken about by TL and co. Its sitting there ready to bite us on the arse should we not cover up.

 

It's just as likely that the FL's contract recognises that our circumstances do not fit their standard pattern, and gives us the licence without a cva, against their rules by letter of law, which further weakens their legal position over the 10 penalty, so that they will only do this on the condition that we do not appeal the -10, which was also against the letter of the law.

 

Fact is, we all know diddly squat!

 

Going slowly nuts personally. :-(

 

K.

[Wade Garrett]

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.

 

Unfortunately, I agree with you. I don't suppose their backer is too impressed with spunking over a million quid either.

 

Forget the Jackson 'bid'. Forget Jackson, he is a tool.

[derry]

According to Solent and Lynam's own statements on Solent, FL were taking legal advice *yesterday* on what he sent them and were expected to get back to Pinnacle this morning. Even allowing for "lawyers' slippage", I can't think it will be much later than now that Tony Lynam hears from the league. How long can it take to write:

 

Dear Tony,

 

Sod off.

 

love, Brian

 

 

Either pinnacle sign this pm after capitulating, or the swiss or whoever will enter a period of exclusivity very soon IMO.

 

K.

 

I think you may be right. It depends on the Swiss accepting a warts and all licence. Pinnacle probably about now are trying to get their backer to accept this.

 

If I was as rich as they make out I'd either forget it unless I was keen, then I'd sign up as SFC, buy and keep SLH going out of administration complete with CVA and take them to the high court anyway.

[Mr Nice]

I heard the interview and this is a very different Tony Lynam. Far less bullish and sounded flat / exhausted. My personal opnion is that the Pinnnacle takeover is nearly dead.

The bit he refered to as "Illegal" was signing a document that stated "Southampton Football Club" were in administration, not the right to appeal (That's how I understood it anyway.

I take back what i said on aother post today and believe that the FL are trying to push the club into administration, which would effectively cover their arses.

 

Come on the Swiss..... your turn

 

 

But would the swiss not have the same problems ?

[CanadaSaint]

Yes, but the hitch occured between the FL and Pinnacle at the last moment....the FL moved the goalposts after all had been agreed.

 

I thought Pinnacle were fully aware of the penalty and the denial of appeal rights when they started negotiations.

 

Other teams have been allowed to appeal in the past.

 

You're right but, again, I thought Pinnacle knew that the FL was denying them this right.

 

Except the legal advice is saying the league has punished the wrong company because it is not in administration in the eyes of the law.

 

The lawyers on all sides are handling this one.

 

This, I think, is the best hope but it would almost certainly be decided only after the deal has fallen apart, at which point we might well be completely screwed.

[CanadaSaint]

But would the swiss not have the same problems ?

 

Probably not because they would be fully aware of the real problem issues going in - and likely already are aware of them.

 

If they decided to move it would probably happen in a hurry - especially with another 15 points at stake.

[derry]

I heard the interview and this is a very different Tony Lynam. Far less bullish and sounded flat / exhausted. My personal opnion is that the Pinnnacle takeover is nearly dead.

The bit he refered to as "Illegal" was signing a document that stated "Southampton Football Club" were in administration, not the right to appeal (That's how I understood it anyway.

I take back what i said on aother post today and believe that the FL are trying to push the club into administration, which would effectively cover their arses.

 

Come on the Swiss..... your turn

 

There would be no reason to argue that if he wasn't still contesting the club's position.

[derry]

I thought Pinnacle were fully aware of the penalty and the denial of appeal rights when they started negotiations.

 

 

 

You're right but, again, I thought Pinnacle knew that the FL was denying them this right.

 

 

 

This, I think, is the best hope but it would almost certainly be decided only after the deal has fallen apart, at which point we might well be completely screwed.

 

You're up early, No golf? what time are you, BST -7 or -6?

[saintjay77]

I thought Pinnacle were fully aware of the penalty and the denial of appeal rights when they started negotiations.

 

They were aware of the -10 points penalty but were led to believe that they were able to appeal. They didnt find out they were not until they got the contract from the FL asking them to waive there right of appeal.

[Mr Nice]

They were aware of the -10 points penalty but were led to believe that they were able to appeal. They didnt find out they were not until they got the contract from the FL asking them to waive there right of appeal.

 

 

That does sound right and the (led to believe) part would almost certainly be begbies traynor telling them.

[CanadaSaint]

You're up early, No golf? what time are you, BST -7 or -6?

 

BST -7.

 

Golf is possible - up to 26 C today. A long walk with wife in the off-leash area is certain. That's the dogs off-leash, not me!

[trousers]

If the deal collapses because of the FL's intransigence then I hope Pinnacle, Admin, creditors and fans will seek redress from the FL authoritites.

 

Thinking out loud (dangerous I know...), if it comes to it, could/would Pinnacle sell the 'intellectual property' (knowledge, paperwork, etc) that they gleaned during their 3 week exclusivity period to the next preferred bidder in-line in order to:

 

(a) expedite the process for the next bidder

and

(b) recoup some of their costs?

[CanadaSaint]

They were aware of the -10 points penalty but were led to believe that they were able to appeal. They didnt find out they were not until they got the contract from the FL asking them to waive there right of appeal.

 

Thanks, Jay, I thought they did know. That does change things.

[trousers]

They were aware of the -10 points penalty but were led to believe that they were able to appeal. They didnt find out they were not until they got the contract from the FL asking them to waive there right of appeal.

 

It was more than a case of 'being led to believe'....Mawhinney stated we could appeal on national television!

[ringwood]

I believe the legal bit is to do with the 10 points and the cva requirement

 

how can the FL insist that the club is in admin which is not true under corporate law, and then insist that a document produced under corporate law is produced for the club?

 

SFC have no way of admitting they are in admin and no way of producing a CVA, so by signing away the appeal the FL hope that SFC are admitting to admin and then they can add the extra deduction for not producing CVA.

 

if the appeal is not allowed due to the appeal procedure ie over 7 days since judgement being applied then surely no need for the FL statement, they'd simply reject the appeal on those grounds and not even discuss it?.

[saintjay77]

Thanks, Jay, I thought they did know. That does change things.

 

I may be completly wrong but I think thats the idea I get from what has been released all over the place. They treated it like a bit of a shock when IMO its something that they should have known about earlier.

[Greenridge]

So it would seem we have reached some sort of impasse. The FL are not going to back down so it's a question of whether Pinnacle will or not. I'm sure there's been plenty of frantic activity going on behind the scenes these last few days but on the face of it we seem no closer to a conclusion today than we were nearly a week ago.

[Stoozer]

If it's illegal let Pinnacle go public. The FL would then have to respond and explain.

 

Or not

[saintjay77]

It was more than a case of 'being led to believe'....Mawhinney stated we could appeal on national television!

 

He did at the beginning. But if this 7 days stuff is right then at that time they really did have the right to appeal. It maybe a case of the administrators thinking that was an open comment when lord d***face didnt say it was only for the next 5 mins.

 

I would have thought someone would have gone and asked if that right to appeal was open to any future buyer. Kniowing that there would be the 21 days of exclusivity the administrators would have known the buyer wouldnt be done and dusted within a week.

 

Sounds like someone messed up on the administrators side and lord D***face was a sly git and only told us half the story.

[1976_Child]

Looks like we will be kicked out of the FL and be reduced to the Blue Sq.

 

The players are all free agents now that the club has defaulted on their contracts. Pinnacle are not going to win this one and even if they do it will take too long in the courts. The FL are going to dig their heals in.

 

What a total load of ******.

 

Good news for which ever club finished runner-up in league 2 as they will be promoted to league 1.

 

******. This is crap

[derry]

You can bet your bottom dollar that once the league's answer to the legal issue is known, the backer and his legal advisers will look at it and make the decision.