saintbletch Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Seems clear enough to me..... Sorry I should have been clearer. Two questions. In saying... - we would also clarify that throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue. a) is this a specific statement about the FL's dealings with Pinnacle versus a generic statement on their approach to administration? I ask because in their introduction it says that there this is a standard response due to the volume of communication they receive. I "assume" this is a comment that is specific to the Pinnacle dealings with the FL. b) If a) is true then does this suggest that Pinnacle only ever asked for a waiver of the -10 points and therefore there was never a dispute over a "no appeal" condition?
ringwood Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 I sent the FL an email direct and received this reply Thank you for your email. Due to the volume of communications received a standard response is necessary. To clarify, the sporting sanction, i.e. points deduction has been made in accordance with League regulations, which are put in place by the clubs themselves – The League merely administers them. An appeal is allowed with a specified period. Sporting sanctions regulations were not introduced until 2004 and could not be applied to Clubs before that time. When a club suffers an insolvency event, e.g. administration, their share in The League is liable to be withdrawn under the terms of our Articles of Association. In other words their membership comes to an end. However, because we are in the business of trying to keep clubs alive, the Board operates a policy within the provisions of the Articles which suspends the withdrawal of a club’s share in order to give them a second chance – this is entirely in keeping with the law of the land. Recent arbitration proceedings confirm The Football League has the right to impose conditions on a company that sees to join The League in this way. These conditions reflect the need to protect the integrity of the competition by ensuring that no club should be able to gain an advantage over its rivals by not paying its debts. Owners of football clubs will change over time, but the ‘club’ remains the same. It is the club which secures a competitive advantage from wiping out debt through insolvency proceedings, and therefore, it is only right that it is the club, regardless as to the identity of the new owners, that is made subject to any conditions. The League has a responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season - we would also clarify that throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue.
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 (edited) The FL said that SLH and SFC were "intrinsically linked", and I don't think we can really refute that, can we? That doesn't mean that they are the same "legal" entity. SFC isn't in Administration and can therefor not be subject to a CVA. SLH can, and must be if it is being bought. Not even the FL could possibly want to see a CVA for a company which hasn't been legally in Administration. They can't ask to see flying pigs or elves either. Oh yes they could, it's in their rules. We will see. Again, I hope I'm wrong. Even the FL email reply above doesn't rule out the possibility of further sanctions. It merely says a waiver was raised as an issue, neither confirming nor denying that additional sanctions might be levied. Anyway, I don't think I can say that "despite the semantics and the legalities I don't think we should assume the FL is fine with our situation and may yet deduct more points" in many other ways, so I'm going to leave it there... Edited 1 July, 2009 by The9
Window Cleaner Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4467910.Football_League_hit_out_at_Pinnacle/ Is this not exactly what I told you yesterday? the rules are clear cut, you just have to follow them and not bullcrap all the time.There are people who think that by talking big numbers and big sh*t they can fool all of the people all of the time. Some however are not so gullible.But then in most cases it cost the taxpayer big bucks to get them to that condition so it's not surprising that they don't fall for con-men .
Gorgiesaint Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Just why are some trying to turn this on it's arse for something relatively straight forward. There was clarification from the FL that SFC should not escape the administration regulations based upon SLH being deemed a holding company and not the football club. The FL defined SLH for the purposes of their administration rules to represent the football club. That means any CVA has to be on the basis of SLH not SFC. So any further penalties will be due to any infringement of the FL administration rules as per it has been for any other club. And please no more bollix about this cannot apply because SLH does not exist. Neither Pinnacle or the FL come out of this with much credit regarding their statements. This puzzles me as well - if we cannot provide a CVA for the entity that has gone into administration then a further points deduction would have followed. If we had argued that the club is a separate entity, hence no CVA, would the league have ruled that we are a new 'club' and forced us further down teh pyramid?
krissyboy31 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Neither Pinnacle or the FL come out of this with much credit regarding their statements. This puzzles me as well - if we cannot provide a CVA for the entity that has gone into administration then a further points deduction would have followed. If we had argued that the club is a separate entity, hence no CVA, would the league have ruled that we are a new 'club' and forced us further down teh pyramid? TBH I don't think anyone knows, not even the FL. Their rule book never envisaged this scenario and by declaring SLH and SFC were inextricably linked, in order to impose their 10 point penalty, they have made the whole thing a complete mess.
Window Cleaner Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 The FL also state that they were not considering further points deductions. they are however watching over "take-over" situations rather closely http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/8127790.stm Not that we'd be under the microscope of course.
aintforever Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 It's quite clear Pinnacle were full of ****, they couldn't find the dough so used the FL as an excuse.
rocknrollman no2 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 It's quite clear Pinnacle were full of ****, they couldn't find the dough so used the FL as an excuse. Well said that man!
Window Cleaner Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 It's quite clear Pinnacle were full of ****, they couldn't find the dough so used the FL as an excuse. absolutely crystal clear, the instant Crouch was mentioned as being part of or peripheral to the bid I knew it was all brown and sticky.
aintforever Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 absolutely crystal clear, the instant Crouch was mentioned as being part of or peripheral to the bid I knew it was all brown and sticky. Is there actually any evidence that Crouch paid towards the exclusivity? If he did then it was dumb, it's fair enough being deceived by Lynham but to actually stump up your own money so some mystery millionaire can think about buying the club is rediculously nieve. The whole point in a deposit is to show a level of commitment.
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Can we all agree that Pinnacle and the FL both suck? But that means MLT sucks because he is still backing (Pinnacle's) TL's actions. You can't cherry pick here. Matt needs to shoulder some blame here. He was told over the wekend that Pinnacle were chancers and he chose to carry on oblivious.
saint63 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 I have just opened this email from the FL about the 10 points deduction. I post it here as a stimulus for informed debate. It sounds as if I was one of many who vented my feelings! Any Sports lawyers about? Here it is: Thank you for your email. Due to the volume of communications a standard response is necessary. To clarify, the sporting sanction, i.e. points deduction has been made in accordance with League regulations, which are put in place by the clubs themselves – The League merely administers them. An appeal is allowed with a specified period. When a club suffers an insolvency event, e.g. administration, their share in The League is liable to be withdrawn under the terms of our Articles of Association. In other words their membership comes to an end. However, because we are in the business of trying to keep clubs alive, the Board operates a policy within the provisions of the Articles which suspends the withdrawal of a club’s share in order to give them a second chance – this is entirely in keeping with the law of the land. Recent arbitration proceedings confirm The Football League has the right to impose conditions on a company that sees to join The League in this way. These conditions reflect the need to protect the integrity of the competition by ensuring that no club should be able to gain an advantage over its rivals by not paying its debts. Owners of football clubs will change over time, but the ‘club’ remains the same. It is the club which secures a competitive advantage from wiping out debt through insolvency proceedings, and therefore, it is only right that it is the club, regardless as to the identity of the new owners, that is made subject to any conditions. The League has a responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season - we would also clarify that throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue. Patricia Brown Customer Service The Football League http://www.football-league.co.uk
S-Clarke Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 That email is almost word for word from the one that they sent last week...
saint63 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 That email is almost word for word from the one that they sent last week... So much for negotiation then!!
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 That email is almost word for word from the one that they sent last week... Here's a clue: Thank you for your email. Due to the volume of communications a standard response is necessary.
Pancake Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 That email is almost word for word from the one that they sent last week... Are you suggesting the a large company has the nerve to use templated standard responses in order to improve information integrity, speed of communication and lower overheads!
Channon's Sideburns Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 I have just opened this email from the FL about the 10 points deduction. I post it here as a stimulus for informed debate. It sounds as if I was one of many who vented my feelings! Any Sports lawyers about? Here it is: Thank you for your email. Due to the volume of communications a standard response is necessary. To clarify, the sporting sanction, i.e. points deduction has been made in accordance with League regulations, which are put in place by the clubs themselves – The League merely administers them. An appeal is allowed with a specified period. When a club suffers an insolvency event, e.g. administration, their share in The League is liable to be withdrawn under the terms of our Articles of Association. In other words their membership comes to an end. However, because we are in the business of trying to keep clubs alive, the Board operates a policy within the provisions of the Articles which suspends the withdrawal of a club’s share in order to give them a second chance – this is entirely in keeping with the law of the land. Recent arbitration proceedings confirm The Football League has the right to impose conditions on a company that sees to join The League in this way. These conditions reflect the need to protect the integrity of the competition by ensuring that no club should be able to gain an advantage over its rivals by not paying its debts. Owners of football clubs will change over time, but the ‘club’ remains the same. It is the club which secures a competitive advantage from wiping out debt through insolvency proceedings, and therefore, it is only right that it is the club, regardless as to the identity of the new owners, that is made subject to any conditions. The League has a responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season - we would also clarify that throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue. Patricia Brown Customer Service The Football League http://www.football-league.co.uk I received the same response....
S-Clarke Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Are you suggesting the a large company has the nerve to use templated standard responses in order to improve information integrity, speed of communication and lower overheads! nope, I'd never suggest that.......
Frank's cousin Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 (edited) Recent arbitration proceedings confirm The Football League has the right to impose conditions on a company that sees to join The League in this way. These conditions reflect the need to protect the integrity of the competition by ensuring that no club should be able to gain an advantage over its rivals by not paying its debts. Owners of football clubs will change over time, but the ‘club’ remains the same. It is the club which secures a competitive advantage from wiping out debt through insolvency proceedings, and therefore, it is only right that it is the club, regardless as to the identity of the new owners, that is made subject to any conditions. The League has a responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season - we would also clarify that throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue. This actually clarifies quite a bit - reading these statments from the FL it is clear that the ownership is not the issue - as the FL see the club as the club who ever the owners are - as such if new owners buy saints from SLH and as a result have cleared all debts, then the football league have the right to impose further sporting sanctions if they deam the club has gained an advantage by having the debts cleared. So what it depends on is whether the FL feel that SLH agreeing with creditors the amount they will recieve is deemed sufficient to ensure the club has not gained an advantage. We can argure that it would not be fair in our eyes, but you can see the FLs point eg. someone waiting long enough could buy the club for 5 mil and clear off 25 mill of debt - which would be a huge advantage and likely to incur further points deductions - so the key is that the bidder is prepared to ensure the deal is structured to satisfy not only the SLH creditors, but also the football league with respect to minimising the debt wiped clear. There is a very simple way round this. If the new bidders could agree a new deal with AVIVA to take on the stadium repayments in full, they could clear all debts to the remaining creditors for about 6 mil thus avoiding any FL claim that we have avoided repayment of substantial debt. The trick then is to budget to ensure we continue to trade within our means including the mortgage payments to AVIVA of approx 1.7 mil a year - which should be possible. Edited 2 July, 2009 by Frank's cousin
saintjay77 Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 This actually clarifies quite a bit - reading these statments from the FL it is clear that the ownership is not the issue - as the FL see the club as the club who ever the owners are - as such if new owners buy saints from SLH and as a result have cleared all debts, then the football league have the right to impose further sporting sanctions if they deam the club has gained an advantage by having the debts cleared. So what it depends on is whether the FL feel that SLH agreeing with creditors the amount they will recieve is deemed sufficient to ensure the club has not gained an advantage. We can argure that it would not be fair in our eyes, but you can see the FLs point eg. someone waiting long enough could buy the club for 5 mil and clear off 25 mill of debt - which would be a huge advantage and likely to incur further points deductions - so the key is that the bidder is prepared to ensure the deal is structured to satisfy not only the SLH creditors, but also the football league with respect to minimising the debt wiped clear. There is a very simple way round this. If the new bidders could agree a new deal with AVIVA to take on the stadium repayments in full, they could clear all debts to the remaining creditors for about 6 mil thus avoiding any FL claim that we have avoided repayment of substantial debt. The trick then is to budget to ensure we continue to trade within our means including the mortgage payments to AVIVA of approx 1.7 mil a year - which should be possible. Quick point FC. SFC company is the football club which is what the perspective bidders have been interested in and the only thing we have had any info on so far. SMS is a seperate company owned by SLH and therfor would need to be purchaced seperatly. SFC's debts/bills are rental of the stadium, ongoing Transfer payments to other clubs and the Overdraft. (im sure there will be more but i am being simplistic) SMS's debts/bills will be the Mortage with AVIVA, Utility bills and staffing. So if someone bought SFC they could still rent SMS from either Aviva, SLH or a new owner. It would make sence for who ever buys SFC to also buy SMS and training ground and so on but the way things are set up they dont have too. So if SFC is bought and its debts are cleared but SMS is not bought and the mortage is not satisfied then there will be no CVA for SLH and therefor leave us open to the possability of further punishment IMO.
derry Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 This actually clarifies quite a bit - reading these statments from the FL it is clear that the ownership is not the issue - as the FL see the club as the club who ever the owners are - as such if new owners buy saints from SLH and as a result have cleared all debts, then the football league have the right to impose further sporting sanctions if they deam the club has gained an advantage by having the debts cleared. So what it depends on is whether the FL feel that SLH agreeing with creditors the amount they will recieve is deemed sufficient to ensure the club has not gained an advantage. We can argure that it would not be fair in our eyes, but you can see the FLs point eg. someone waiting long enough could buy the club for 5 mil and clear off 25 mill of debt - which would be a huge advantage and likely to incur further points deductions - so the key is that the bidder is prepared to ensure the deal is structured to satisfy not only the SLH creditors, but also the football league with respect to minimising the debt wiped clear. There is a very simple way round this. If the new bidders could agree a new deal with AVIVA to take on the stadium repayments in full, they could clear all debts to the remaining creditors for about 6 mil thus avoiding any FL claim that we have avoided repayment of substantial debt. The trick then is to budget to ensure we continue to trade within our means including the mortgage payments to AVIVA of approx 1.7 mil a year - which should be possible. At a meeting I went to, Crouch said £2.4m each year.
Frank's cousin Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 At a meeting I went to, Crouch said £2.4m each year. That seems high because I am sure in one of teh previous annual financial statements its about 1.4-1.6 mil a year - unless Crouch and wilde renogotiated it? up?
Scummer Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 That seems high because I am sure in one of teh previous annual financial statements its about 1.4-1.6 mil a year - unless Crouch and wilde renogotiated it? up? Unless it's the total cost of running the stadium. Rates, electric etc would take it up to around that figure.
Frank's cousin Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 Unless it's the total cost of running the stadium. Rates, electric etc would take it up to around that figure. That would make sence and be serviceable if we averaged over 16-17k gate.
up and away Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 This actually clarifies quite a bit - reading these statments from the FL it is clear that the ownership is not the issue - as the FL see the club as the club who ever the owners are - as such if new owners buy saints from SLH and as a result have cleared all debts' date=' then the football league have the right to impose further sporting sanctions if they deam the club has gained an advantage by having the debts cleared. [b']So what it depends on is whether the FL feel that SLH agreeing with creditors the amount they will recieve is deemed sufficient to ensure the club has not gained an advantage.[/b] We can argure that it would not be fair in our eyes, but you can see the FLs point eg. someone waiting long enough could buy the club for 5 mil and clear off 25 mill of debt - which would be a huge advantage and likely to incur further points deductions - so the key is that the bidder is prepared to ensure the deal is structured to satisfy not only the SLH creditors, but also the football league with respect to minimising the debt wiped clear. There is a very simple way round this. If the new bidders could agree a new deal with AVIVA to take on the stadium repayments in full, they could clear all debts to the remaining creditors for about 6 mil thus avoiding any FL claim that we have avoided repayment of substantial debt. The trick then is to budget to ensure we continue to trade within our means including the mortgage payments to AVIVA of approx 1.7 mil a year - which should be possible. And how do they do that? By insisting upon having a CVA representing 75% of the net debt from creditors. Most clubs gain an advantage from administration, that's how come the rules were introduced along with the penalties. You can point to imbalances when you consider the debt bypassed by varying clubs in respect to the penalties and wonder if the punishment fits the magnitude. But the FL has a simple set of workable rules on this with the 75% and if any change were to happen on this, there have been several previous high profile cases where this would have happened. You can understand why Barry Hearn believes the whole thing stinks for clubs that struggle away on prudent management. But then again those clubs don't have the immediate prospect of being removed from any valued form of football.
Frank's cousin Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 And how do they do that? By insisting upon having a CVA representing 75% of the net debt from creditors. Most clubs gain an advantage from administration, that's how come the rules were introduced along with the penalties. You can point to imbalances when you consider the debt bypassed by varying clubs in respect to the penalties and wonder if the punishment fits the magnitude. But the FL has a simple set of workable rules on this with the 75% and if any change were to happen on this, there have been several previous high profile cases where this would have happened. You can understand why Barry Hearn believes the whole thing stinks for clubs that struggle away on prudent management. But then again those clubs don't have the immediate prospect of being removed from any valued form of football. True so maybe the 75% rule was the sticking pint.... On the more general rule, where I see the system as perhaps flawed is that it fails to take into account individual circumstances - eg the vast majority of or 'debt' is actually a mortgage taken out on infrastructure - something that was necessary really given the legal requirements following the publication of the Taylor report and the need for all seater - we needed to move really and did so at a time when it was easily sustainable within out revenue - we did NOT borrow heavily in the prem on players and wages as Leeds did - something that ironically we have forgotten in the the current blame game - whatever else LOwe is HE DID run teh club with minimal financial risk and within its means when in teh prem - something that everyone calls for now, but at the time we said was lacking ambition, this refusal to take a 'risk' on success - so Hearn can go feck himself on that score - our 'living within our means meant we did not invest enough to just stand still let alone improve as all around us clubs were borrowing more and more to stay ahead and in the prem... Yes when Lowe went Wilde's board approved that spending of money we had at te time, but on contracts that we would not be able to sustain if we did not get promoted - Crouch did not veto when on the football board so this was in effect financial risk that is directly hat teh FL is trying to discourage through the penalty system... So on balance yes we deserve the -10 points for the administration, but considering how the debt was created the complete lack of any sporting advantage to us outside the premierleague, if talking about the 'spirit' of the law/rules we are hardly in the same ballpark as those clubs who ran up massive debts on playesr and wages - yet we could get puniched the same as Leeds or worse - that is what teh FL rules fail to take ionto account and where IMHO its unfair - and just for the record Hearn can go feck himself agian as he obviously does not appreciate these differences...
Steeleye Saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 I got the same response too - but followed it up with an email back. The answers are interesting and makes me think that the league have further points deductions in mind once the waiver re appealing has been signed. Dear Ms Brown, Thank you for your reply - it is appreciated. Could I ask just one more question? Is there a possibility in Southampton's case of further points being deducted before the season begins or, after signing the contract in acceptance of the 10 point penalty, is that where the sanctions begin and end? Many thanks Her reply: Dear Mr Steele Thank you for your further communication. At this stage we can only reiterate that no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue. Patricia Brown I wrote back: Dear Ms Brown, Thanks again for replying. You say that the league regulations are agreed by the member clubs and merely administered by the league - can you tell me under what agreed circumstances further points deductions could be made against a club in administration, after a waiver has been signed? Many thanks and she replied: Dear Mr Steele Many thanks for your further communication. There is however nothing further we add. Patricia Brown I've written back but don't expect an answer: Dear Ms Brown, I'm only asking you to set out under what circumstances further points might be deducted. Surely that is laid out somewhere in your regulations? Perhaps you could tell me where in the regulations I might find the answer? Regards Perhaps this is the issue Pinnacle had - the league won't commit themselves on whether any further sanctions would be imposed after signing the waiver. Not a very transparent way of conducting business with a member club if true.
saintjay77 Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 And how do they do that? By insisting upon having a CVA representing 75% of the net debt from creditors. Most clubs gain an advantage from administration, that's how come the rules were introduced along with the penalties. You can point to imbalances when you consider the debt bypassed by varying clubs in respect to the penalties and wonder if the punishment fits the magnitude. But the FL has a simple set of workable rules on this with the 75% and if any change were to happen on this, there have been several previous high profile cases where this would have happened. You can understand why Barry Hearn believes the whole thing stinks for clubs that struggle away on prudent management. But then again those clubs don't have the immediate prospect of being removed from any valued form of football. I think thats where all the arguments have come from though. If SFC is bought for 15mil then 100% of its debts will be paid so there should be no further sanctions. If the FL stick with the line of SLH being SFC then even if 100% of SFC's debts are paid off we are still at risk of further sanctions until someone buys the SMS company and the other companies while paying 75% or more of there debt. So legally it would be a kick in the teeth if SFC's debts are gone but your still hammered for other parts of the business you buy SFC from. Say 1 person buys SMS and another buys SFC? the person buying SFC pays top whack and the other gets SMS at a cut down price below the 75% Should SFC still get further sanctions then?
eelpie Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4467910.Football_League_hit_out_at_Pinnacle/ No issues from the FL because they were happy with the ultimatums they were imposing. Not the same from Pinnacles point who were not happy with the FL's ultimatum(s). That is my view.
up and away Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 I think thats where all the arguments have come from though. Most of the arguments have been driven by a lack of finance, with the rules being pointed at as an easy opt out in not producing that finance. Then you get posters providing every conspiracy theory known to man or beast in recent times, totally mudding the waters. We are not the victims here, we are the ones who have created this situation eyes wide open. If SFC is bought for 15mil then 100% of its debts will be paid so there should be no further sanctions. If SFC was bought for £25M then 100% of it’s debts would not be covered. What you can do is to reach an agreement with the net debt of 75% of those creditors for the agreed total p/£ debt and pay a further ratio for the club and there would be no further sanctions. If the FL stick with the line of SLH being SFC then even if 100% of SFC's debts are paid off we are still at risk of further sanctions until someone buys the SMS company and the other companies while paying 75% or more of there debt. For the purposes of FL administration rules, SLH is deemed to represent SFC. Therefore to get an agreed CVA for the 75% rule it has to be in respect of SLH, not SFC. Equally that will satisfy the FL in respect to SFC having satisfactorily an agreed CVA So legally it would be a kick in the teeth if SFC's debts are gone but your still hammered for other parts of the business you buy SFC from. No, it would not be a kick in the teeth, it would be back to the beginning when Leicester cheated their creditors and started afresh with no debts and no point’s penalty. Because it has already been defined that if you acquire a CVA for SLH, you have satisfied the conditions for SFC. We will still have deprived the creditors of £M’s at the expense of a 10 point penalty, if we get an agreed CVA from the creditors. Say 1 person buys SMS and another buys SFC? the person buying SFC pays top whack and the other gets SMS at a cut down price below the 75% Should SFC still get further sanctions then? The company administration rules are drawn up such that the minnows do not get squeezed out because the giants have been fed. You need agreement for 75% of all debt, forcing the remainder to accept the same p/£ as the majority. There may be some latitude as to various assets if all the creditors were in agreement but I am only guessing on that. There has been a lot of confusion created, but I cannot say you can put that down to the FL.
saintjay77 Posted 2 July, 2009 Posted 2 July, 2009 There has been a lot of confusion created, but I cannot say you can put that down to the FL. Your stance is the same as the FL as in SLH "is" SFC so for one to be OK they both have to be OK. But thats done based on the bending of FL rules. By the legal System the Holding Company owns several company's including SFC, SMS, Training ground, jacksons farm and what ever else. It also used to own an Insurance company and a radio station and possibly a few other minor divisions. I agree with you that we are trying to work the system to benifit us but thats what any business of everyday person will or at least should be doing. The FL is also trying to do the same from its own stand point. Its all B**ocks really but thats the system that we live in. But given the FL rules are not following in line with the Legal system I can understand where the perspective buyers are basing there argument. Morally and black and white terms Any club going into admin should maybe get a - 10 point hit and be done with it. No arguments and no fecking around. But by the letter of the law SFC is not SLH and SFC's debts are not the Stadiums debts or anyone else's and visa versa. If I was the man with the money I would trying to get what ever I could too. FFS these people dont make there money by rolling over to the demands of everyone else all the time do they? I cant see either side truly giving up its ground though and the FL obviously hold all the aces as being a members club its rules can be what ever they want them to be and the Legal system doesnt really come into it. What worries me is the longer things go on and the more players that get sold the less the club will be worth. If it was valued at 15 mil and its just sold 2.5 mil worth of its assets then is it now worth 12.5 mil?
CB Fry Posted 8 July, 2009 Posted 8 July, 2009 Further points deductions for what? The "inextricably linked" rule that deducted us 10 points will not then be ignored to deduct a further 15 points becuase "SFC" cannot provide a CVA even if SLH can. Just not going to happen. That kind of thinking just comes from a view that the League just want to deduct points for a bit of a laugh or just to punish for the sake of punishment. The discussions between the league and prospective purchasers will be about the ability of those purchasers to satisfy creditors and to discuss the club as the complete entity it was in the first place and will be, even more, in the future. We might get deducted 15 points on friday if we can't satisfy creditors, but if Pinnacle had any bloody money that wouldn't have been the case yesterday. I think I said most of that - the league want to be satisfied that the creditors are satisfied. The league are going to accept the CVA from whoever the relevant party is - SLH, SFC 2009 Ltd, whoever. The league are not going to deduct -15 points on the technicality you specify. It's ridiculous and is not going to happen. It's a tiny bit of a mess, but people on here are making far more of it than I bet the league are. The deduction we had originally was on the principle we went into admin. Any further deduction wil be on the principe we haven't satisfied creditors, not on some nebulous "but you're not SFC" argument. Not going to happen. No, we didn't set things up to beat the system but we're not being punished as if we did. The club went into admin, SLH was SFC was SLH. I'm glad you're confident. The FL have had ample opportunity to confirm this and haven't. They have also penalised clubs who HAVE a CVA (unagreed), never mind ones who don't even qualify for a CVA. One of us is going to be wrong, I hope it's me. Nope, its CB Fry. Is it f*ck. Sorry for dredging this up but I've had dogs abuse for daring to suggest two things a) the league were not lying b) and as long as deal was done with satisfied creditors we'd be deducted ten points. No more, no less. Why that offended so many people I will never know. But I was bloody right all along so I am ****ed off at the response I kept getting for saying something which to me was just clankingly obvious. This is my last contribution on this subject.
alpine_saint Posted 8 July, 2009 Posted 8 July, 2009 let sleeping dogs lie Sad, isnt it ???? He's obviously p*ssed his other thread got no responses.
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