PokingFun Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 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? No, why they are insisting on agreement that SFC is in admin when it isn't. The -10 points relating to the spirit of the competition etc is fine, but the FL are asking SFC to agree that it was in admin and is now coming out of admin. I guess this possibly has knock on effects if SFC wanted to engage in future business contracts etc, but am not sure. TL mentioned that the conditions the FL were imposing exposed SFC to risk. What are your reasons for wanting to knock TL anyway? I saw the interview on SSN and he did nothing wrong at all and the additional information about agreeing SFC is in admin is not something I had heard previous and seemed quite significant.
charliemiller Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 can you give us any clues CM? Money Man ? Coming out to play? \SSN
OldNick Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Money Man ? Coming out to play? \SSNoh i see, go on beat them to it
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 (edited) Here's a slight slant for you that as a lawyer has been going through my mind for a while now....... Suppose the FL were wrong to deduct the 10 points because it was the PLC not the club that went into admin, we should not have to reapply for this football licence that is holding things up, therefore we would not have to agree to the FL's demand that waive the right to appeal their decision. The whole thing becomes circular, because we would be claiming that our registration should never have been cancelled because the club was never in admin. I have a funny feeling that this is the line being pursued by Pinnacle at the moment..... As a lay person, I find that interesting Edited 25 June, 2009 by INFLUENCED.COM
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 I have come to a difficult conclusion. If I was a man with money and wanting to save Saints and I encountered the sort of agreements that the FL are allegedly asking to be signed I would have walked away from it. What a terrible and demoralising thought to have.
Junior Mullet Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 As a lay person, I find that interesting If my speculation is correct the FL would have a massive claim on their hands if SFC were illegally unable to register this season - you could imagine how the claim for damages would be huge given the conseuquences of that. In those circumstances it seems the FL would have as much to gain as us from allowing an independent panel to hear an appeal.
redstripe Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Sounds like we are being punished for trying to find club and holding company loophole. Will any other clubs support us and go on strike?
Stu Man Do Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 I expect this has been spoken about somewhere else but I havent seen it, but, if there is some concern that we would need to take an extra points deduction next season why havent the likes of Stockport also needed to do this? Surely seeing as they were actually "without doubt" ;-) in admin they need this CVA to come out of it as it appears we do to.
derry Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Sounds like we are being punished for trying to find club and holding company loophole. Will any other clubs support us and go on strike? It was the structure demanded by the football authorities when we became owned by a public company in 1997 as a result of the reverse takeover.
madsent Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Here's a slight slant for you that as a lawyer has been going through my mind for a while now....... Suppose the FL were wrong to deduct the 10 points because it was the PLC not the club that went into admin, we should not have to reapply for this football licence that is holding things up, therefore we would not have to agree to the FL's demand that waive the right to appeal their decision. The whole thing becomes circular, because we would be claiming that our registration should never have been cancelled because the club was never in admin. I have a funny feeling that this is the line being pursued by Pinnacle at the moment..... As a lay person, I find that interesting As far as I know, each team has to reapply for a licence every season. This would force all the teams to abide by any new rules laid down by the football league before the licence was renewed.
aberdare Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 As a lay person, I find that interesting as a non lay person I find it incredibly wishful thinking to argue that a company which has no source of income, and has failed to pay it's wages for two consecutive months on time is trading solvently. Pinnacle and Swansea City FC paid cash to SLH last month I understand. (Administration bank account), that cash was used to pay the wages of SFC staff. Is it not slightly bizarre that a forum which proportionately heavily disliked even despised Lowe, and who regarded him as self serving and largely incompetent are now clinging to the hope that his "cunning plan" was in fact "cunning"? Stockport will need a CVA.
trousers Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 oh i see, go on beat them to it He would if he could spell the surname....
krissyboy31 Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 As far as I know, each team has to reapply for a licence every season. This would force all the teams to abide by any new rules laid down by the football league before the licence was renewed. I don't think you are correct here. I believe that the license is revoked when a club goes into administration and only fully reissued once a club has come out via an agreed CVA.
Katalinic Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Money Man ? Coming out to play? \SSN Yep just said on SSN he will be live in the studio in 5 mins
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 The "money man" on ssn in next few minutes apparently...
Toomer Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 It's all going to go tits up and Lynam and his backers will walk away.
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Is it not slightly bizarre that a forum which proportionately heavily disliked even despised Lowe, and who regarded him as self serving and largely incompetent are now clinging to the hope that his "cunning plan" was in fact "cunning"? No it is not in the slightest bit bizarre, you must be new here
Under Weststand Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Money man on Sky Sports news now! Its Michael Fialaka ?
dronskisaint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 'The players are all free agents now that the club has defaulted on their contracts' Not being paid on the day does not necessarily constitute breach of contract & certainly would not result in the players being free agents. Likewise not paying on the day does not mean that we are in administration! I'm as frustrated as the next man but there's some wildly speculative crap being put up here. The encouraging thing is that TL has never said that if 'this' doesn't happen then 'that' categorically won't & the language has always been 'when' it's resolved not 'if'. Keep the faith - as a businessman I'd be happy if he was negotiating on my behalf.
Weston Saint Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 One major problem looming....the staff have not been paid...no money coming in....FL/Pinnacle in dispute, no football licence to continue....surely this means the next announcement from Mr Fry will be the liquidation of the club. He has no money to do anything else. We need this sorted and now. Why does the money man not put in some more to keep excusivity for another week if he intends to proceed no matter what the outcome? He risks losing what he has already paid otherwise.
saintwarwick Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 One major problem looming....the staff have not been paid...no money coming in....FL/Pinnacle in dispute, no football licence to continue....surely this means the next announcement from Mr Fry will be the liquidation of the club. He has no money to do anything else. We need this sorted and now. Why does the money man not put in some more to keep excusivity for another week if he intends to proceed no matter what the outcome? He risks losing what he has already paid otherwise. I read on this forum at the start of the week that TL said pinnacle are paying the wages today so why are they now back tracking?
Thedelldays Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 We need this sorted and now. Why does the money man not put in some more to keep excusivity for another week if he intends to proceed no matter what the outcome? He risks losing what he has already paid otherwise. this is why i think pinnacle now want out...
RedArmy Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Fry needs to give them a deadline. Either complete the deal by X or fook off and stop wasting everyones time.
SaintJackoInHurworth Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Quick question: If Pinnacle go ahead with the takeover before the FL agree to issue a licence, that should take the club out of administration resulting in the necessary cva... ...won't the FL be forced then to issue the licence whether or not the waiver has been signed? (Apologies if anyone has asked this before!)
mcjwills Posted 25 June, 2009 Posted 25 June, 2009 Quick question: If Pinnacle go ahead with the takeover before the FL agree to issue a licence, that should take the club out of administration resulting in the necessary cva... ...won't the FL be forced then to issue the licence whether or not the waiver has been signed? (Apologies if anyone has asked this before!) We CANT get a CVA because the football club have not been in administration
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