NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Err - sporting sanctions is the ten points, not the ten points and something else. Come on kids, enough GCSE textual analysis. getting bored with this now, so last one on this! I pre-dated GCSE's but can assure you that a got my "O" level. I am not saying it was more, or other sanctions however, the quote says - "Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue." Unless the tell us specifically we are told that the waiver was only around previously applied sanction then it could be that they were seeking assurance that football league were going to waiver any further future sanctions.
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 OK but from a legal perspective IF SFC and SMS are SOLD to a third party as this deal was all about, this in effect would be a new SFC Ltd, and tghus a seperate entity from te remaining shell SLH... The NEW SFC ltd were applying for a NEW license to participate and according to teh FL the only stipulation was that like ALL Fl clubs this new body agreed to waiver the rights of appeal. The FL sanctions were already inplace against SLH/SFC based on that administration - and SLH would then wbe wound up. I can not see how the FL would ahve any leagl case in applying further sanctions against a NEW entity from which it was now entirely seperate, based on what teh previous holding company does in the future.... IT may be that thsi was not clear and what TL/MLT were looking to have clarified, and in light of the appeal waiver, but according the FL teh appeal waiver was against the -10 points already in place. without being a legal bod, I would suggest that there is no way the FL could insist on a legal waiver against FUTURE sanctions imposed because of a company to which the current club as NO links... surely they would not be insisting on that - It simplydoes not make sense. You can argue the semantics all you like, and I'm on your side with it, but FL rules state you need an agreed CVA to come out of Admin or its a points deduction. Any further decision would be entirely at the whim of the people who make the -10 judgement, which doesn't give me grounds for optimism. I also think all this is entirely irrelevant to the whole Pinnacle failure, FWIW, but that doesn't stop me thinking the FL hasn't provided an appropriate level of communication to clarify the complex issues for fear of opening themselves up to litigation.
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Personally, I don't think it does. It seems that they never proved to the FL that they had any backing either. “Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue. “The Pinnacle Group has been in receipt of a contract from the League for over a week now. “To proceed, all it needed to do was to provide clarification in regard to funding and sign the contract.” It's quite damning in my opinion. Sorry everyone is ignoring that sentence in favour of wetting themselves over the "s" in sanctions.
NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Personally, I don't think it does. It seems that they never proved to the FL that they had any backing either. “Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue. “The Pinnacle Group has been in receipt of a contract from the League for over a week now. “To proceed, all it needed to do was to provide clarification in regard to funding and sign the contract.” It's quite damning in my opinion. but in theory the FL did not stop them proceeding - its was Pinnacles choice due to wack of willingness of FL to waiver right to further sanctions etc
NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Sorry everyone is ignoring that sentence in favour of wetting themselves over the "s" in sanctions. sorry - you are ignoring the fact that FL were waiting on Pinnacle and pinnacle walked away!
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 sorry - you are ignoring the fact that FL were waiting on Pinnacle and pinnacle walked away! Becuase they didn't have the money.
NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 and this is my 4th post since saying I won't post on this again!
trousers Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Posted 1 July, 2009 Bottom line is, all this conjecture and misinterpretation of what conditions were on the table could have been avoided if Pinnacle and/or The Football League had been transparent about what the conditions under discussion were/are. There may well be confidentialities in the detail but I can't believe the higher level information would have been sensitive.
NickG Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Becuase they didn't have the money. god this is like arguing with my kids! Yes that is probably right. However Pinnacle have made another excuse which we are all finding hard to believe. FL made a statement, which as the interpretation of most on this thread, still leaves room for Pinnacle to use that excuse.
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Bottom line is, all this conjecture and misinterpretation of what conditions were on the table could have been avoided if Pinnacle and/or The Football League had been transparent about what the conditions under discussion were/are. There may well be confidentialities in the detail but I can't believe the higher level information would have been sensitive. But it is perfectly possible that the 10 points is the only thing under discussion, that's what the League said, and Pinnacle have barely contested it ("other issues" is lame nothing ness) so who thinks it is more than that? Oh, people on a webforum. As far as I can see the league have been transparent. Pinnacle, on the other hand....
stevegrant Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 I actually think the FL statement is pretty ambiguous, and you only need to look at the stark difference in the interpretations on this thread already to prove it. They say that no other conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions has ever been raised with them as a major issue. However, while it could mean that the only obstacle was appealing against the 10-point deduction that we have already been given, it could also mean a waiver which prevents us appealing any additional deductions they may or may not have planned. While I'm not in any particular hurry to defend Lynam over this whole debacle, the Football League have clearly worded their statement such that it doesn't actually say whether the issue is just to do with the 10 points or whether they gave any information as to whether they were likely to impose further "sporting sanctions" even if the Pinnacle deal went through smoothly from that point.
alpine_saint Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Well, hang on a minute... The spokesman says the issue was a "waiver regarding sporting sanctions". This encapsulates the 10 points but also the other routes through which the FL could deduct points. It's hardly confirmation that the sole issue was the 10 points. My take on it too. Why generalise with "sporting sanctions" in the statement rather than explicitly state "10 points" ? Despite my mistrust of Pinnacle, the FL are clearly playing political games.
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 god this is like arguing with my kids! Yes that is probably right. However Pinnacle have made another excuse which we are all finding hard to believe. FL made a statement, which as the interpretation of most on this thread, still leaves room for Pinnacle to use that excuse. Pinnacle's excuse is "other issues" which is a vacuum for you to fill in with whatever punishment you can make up in your own head, be it ten, twenty or whatever points. Well in my head it's "Pinnacle are full of it". It's all speculation.
trousers Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Posted 1 July, 2009 But it is perfectly possible that the 10 points is the only thing under discussion, that's what the League said, and Pinnacle have barely contested it ("other issues" is lame nothing ness) so who thinks it is more than that? Oh, people on a webforum. As far as I can see the league have been transparent. Pinnacle, on the other hand.... I don't disagree that perhaps we did indeed have transparency on one side iof the fence...just not 100% sure...
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Sorry this does not make sense - Until we are liquidated' date=' in which case creditors just get what is there, the sale was being structured with creditor approval as we are led to understand - hence the price being set at 15 mil in place.[/quote'] Yes, but the league rules require a CVA.
Stirchleysaint Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Pinnacle are gone, don't waste your bandwidth on them.
Frank's cousin Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Jesus christ! Poor reporting. This statement does not contradict what Matt said. He said it wasn't about the 10 points anymore, there were other issues ie more deductions. The league are saying there were no other issues OTHER THAN a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions. This means Saints allowing themselves to be at risk of further sporting sanctions ie point deductions. Unless the league can come out and say that they had, and have no plans to apply more deductions, then this statement is useless as far as I'm concerned. BUt can you then explain how legally the FL could apply fuirther sanctions to the NEW SFC Ltd, without teh new SFC ltd itself doing something against the rules? Because after the sale, SLH would no longer be inextricably linked to SFC - it would be an entirley seperate issue. The Waiver against appeal is something ALL clubs must sign to get their golden share because of the impact legal proceedings can have on the league due to teh length of time they can take....
benjii Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 BUt can you then explain how legally the FL could apply fuirther sanctions to the NEW SFC Ltd, without teh new SFC ltd itself doing something against the rules? Because after the sale, SLH would no longer be inextricably linked to SFC - it would be an entirley seperate issue. The Waiver against appeal is something ALL clubs must sign to get their golden share because of the impact legal proceedings can have on the league due to teh length of time they can take.... Because sanctions are applied to the club - not a company. You can't give a company a points deduction.
stevegrant Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Can we all agree that Pinnacle and the FL both suck? Fine by me
Frank's cousin Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 You can argue the semantics all you like, and I'm on your side with it, but FL rules state you need an agreed CVA to come out of Admin or its a points deduction. Any further decision would be entirely at the whim of the people who make the -10 judgement, which doesn't give me grounds for optimism. I also think all this is entirely irrelevant to the whole Pinnacle failure, FWIW, but that doesn't stop me thinking the FL hasn't provided an appropriate level of communication to clarify the complex issues for fear of opening themselves up to litigation. THats true, I agree, but the Catch 22 is that all clubs need to sign the appeal waiver to get their license, yet teh FL could not includea clause that says no further sanctions etc... but surely they could agree and in writing that IF SLH have agreed CVAs with teh creditors based on receiving the 15 mil from teh new ownesr of SFC, that no further sporting sanctions would be applied based on SFC coming out of admin... I think the rod for their own back created by teh FL is that by docking us -10 for being inextricably linked to SLH, they are somehow not prepared to acknoledge that after being sold SFC are no longer inextricably linked...this is what does not make sese, as SLH will NOT come out of Admin, they will be wound up... SFC will be a new entity having been purchased from SLH so now I am confused.... ;-(
LostBoys Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Oh dear Mr Lynam is being progessively being 'nailed to the floor' in takeover parlance as his statements are being taken apart for their variation from the reality. Clearly they never had the money to complete the deal and so let us lick our supporter wounds and move on in the hope that the real buyer will complete the deal today.
Frank's cousin Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Because sanctions are applied to the club - not a company. You can't give a company a points deduction. But the club would be sepearte from teh comapny that is in administration - its not now, but woudl be after a sale..
Frank's cousin Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Yes, but the league rules require a CVA. BUt SLH/SFC are not applying for a license, only teh NEW independent SFC is, which would NOT be comming out of admin as would be a new company - in effect..??
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 BUt can you then explain how legally the FL could apply fuirther sanctions to the NEW SFC Ltd, without teh new SFC ltd itself doing something against the rules? Because after the sale, SLH would no longer be inextricably linked to SFC - it would be an entirley seperate issue. The Waiver against appeal is something ALL clubs must sign to get their golden share because of the impact legal proceedings can have on the league due to teh length of time they can take.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1034116/Luton-Town-fuming-face-starting-League-Two-campaign-30-points-adrift.html That's the new owners of Luton, last season, slamming the FL for punishing them for misdemeanors of the previous administration. They were an completely separate company. It makes no difference, as the Wimbledon -> MK Dons debacle shows, it's the ownership of the golden share which determines what the FL recognises as "a club", not its legal ownership status. And yes, I know it says Luton had to sign the appeal waiver - but various teams prior to Leeds went through the same process without needing to. The only questions there are "did Pinnacle know this" (which is still irrelevant if they were potless but says much about either their competence or duplicity) and "why isn't it explicit in the sporting sanctions rules ?" Anyway, I've had enough of this argument!
eastleighhalo Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 FWIW MLT yesterday stated on SSN that he " wondered how those in the the corridors of power of the FL could sleep at night" ...or words similar...this to me indicates that further sanctions were almost definate..despite what the FL statement says ..or tries to say in a very carefully scripted way ... Bastards !
Foxy Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Not that bnothered anynmore as this is all in the past but the FL's statement that there were no major issues and that Pinnacle just had to sign is only from their PoV. I could draw up a contract that says I'll give you a cup of lukewarm tea and in return receive your house, your car and use of your missus Thursdays and bank holidays sign it and fire off to you to countersign and from my perspective there would be no real issues (unless it left me a bit low on tea bags) from my perpective and just need your signature. But the deal mightn't be accpetable to you (not having met the missus of course in most cases)
krissyboy31 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 BUt SLH/SFC are not applying for a license' date=' only teh NEW independent SFC is, which would NOT be comming out of admin as would be a new company - in effect..??[/quote'] The trouble is Frank, the FL have written their "sporting sanction" rules in such a way, that if a club can not comply (for any reason) then they can apply penalties (points reduction, or relegation). We are unable to comply with the CVA rules and therefore can expect some sort of sanction to be imposed. Although the 10 point penalty may be seen as fair by many, a further sanction due to not being able to comply with the CVA rules, is patently not. The trouble with waiving the right to appeal against the 10 point penalty meant that the club (without any recourse) are accepting any sporting sanction the FL see fit to award us.
Ashby Saint Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Given the administrator had already determined Pinnacles financial viability this should have been a rubber stamping exercise, surely? Unless, of course, the FL and Begbies have different proof-of-funds criteria....? Speaking without any knowledge / experience at all ... it seems logical that the FL and the administrators would have different criteria: (1) FL interested in medium-term viability of clubs to fulfill their fixtures etc (2) Administrators only interested in maximising repayments to creditors in the short-term In my mind this points to the Pinnacle bid being based around leveraged debt, which fulfills (2) but may not be compatible with (1).
saintjay77 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Just read this - seems MLT and TL were let down by backers who were never totally committed and bottled it - Why do these guys who are well meaning seem to jump in BEFORE they have the full committment of the finance? Its no different to Wilde and Crouch relying on Wilde's 'investors' to fund those transfers/contracts that then never materialised.... I though these were astute businessmen' date=' yet they have been prepared to push things through BEFORE the funding was carved in stone.[/quote'] Maybe there were proper backers that got scared off when whats his face who lives with his mum went on SSN for that insterview? 99% of us were hardly impressed so maybe the real money man/men thought this bid had turned into a circus and cut there losses?
Barry the Badger Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 I think we were doomed the minute we started trying to get out of the ten points with all the 'parent company' nonsense. I do wonder how much that must have p*ssed off the football league, and worry that now they are going to make an example of us, just like they did with Luton.
Wildgoose Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Hopefully this might quieten down the -25 point conspiracy theorists. The FL telling Pinnacle to show us the money is a perfectly reasonably request, and even more reasonable now we know they were full of it from the get go, and built their entire business plan on not being -10. They might as well have built their business plan on us being in the group stages of the Champions League. Absolutely! unfortunately......
johnny c Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 I think we were doomed the minute we started trying to get out of the ten points with all the 'parent company' nonsense. I do wonder how much that must have p*ssed off the football league, and worry that now they are going to make an example of us, just like they did with Luton. They've given us -10 for going into admin and will give us another -15 for no CVA. All by the rule book, anything else exists in people's heads.
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 I think we were doomed the minute we started trying to get out of the ten points with all the 'parent company' nonsense. I do wonder how much that must have p*ssed off the football league, and worry that now they are going to make an example of us. What exactly are we supposed to have done to try and get out of it though ? I know Crouch spouted some utter cobblers about the reason the structure was as it is being to avoid punishment, but we all know that was nonsense as the structure predated the rules by a good 6 years. It's not the FL making an example, it's more they're just trying to stamp on anyone taking their authority and potentially subjecting it to a court of law, because it compromises the competition if it ends up with a court case hanging over it.
saintjay77 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Personally, I don't think it does. It seems that they never proved to the FL that they had any backing either. “Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue. “The Pinnacle Group has been in receipt of a contract from the League for over a week now. “To proceed, all it needed to do was to provide clarification in regard to funding and sign the contract.” It's quite damning in my opinion. Like others have already said. Pinnacle provided proof of funds to get as far as they did. If the money men didnt like what was on offer and they pulled out then Pinnacle are left not being able to provide clarification in regard to funding. Its always been about the points in the discussions between Pinnacle and the league. Originally there was the points and a couple of issues. But a couple days later it was stated that the points were all that remained. What ever Pinnacle offered the League was obviously not accepted so the issue about the points was still there. MLT and TL might have been able to accept the -10 but that doesnt mean the money men were. Or were Pinnacle and co just ready to accept the -10 but wanted to be sure there will be nothing else? This statement doesnt really clarify it either way. It doesnt matter how long someone has the contract for. If they dont like the conditions they are never going to sign. Pinnacle could have come out and said the week before that the FL had there version of the contract for a week and all they had to do was sign. Daft statement IMO.
Thedelldays Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 i think all this "SFC is not in admin but SLH is therefore, give us our 10 points back" is actually quite..eeer, laughable
saintjay77 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Becuase they didn't have the money. They provided proof of funds originally. They spunked a 7 figure some of money on Legal teams and arguments. And they walked away with no chance of recouping that money. How many potless company's/people can afford to throw that kind of money around for nothing?
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 i think all this "SFC is not in admin but SLH is therefore, give us our 10 points back" is actually quite..eeer, laughable Not sure anyone's actually mentioned it on this thread though.
Thedelldays Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Not sure anyone's actually mentioned it on this thread though. so..?
Rogerfryisalegend Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Jesus christ! Poor reporting. This statement does not contradict what Matt said. He said it wasn't about the 10 points anymore, there were other issues ie more deductions. The league are saying there were no other issues OTHER THAN a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions. This means Saints allowing themselves to be at risk of further sporting sanctions ie point deductions. Unless the league can come out and say that they had, and have no plans to apply more deductions, then this statement is useless as far as I'm concerned.Im not saying they have said it, but was this paragragh missed by some here? "They have also stressed very firmly to the Echo that further points deductions against Saints were not being considered".
saintjay77 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 FWIW MLT yesterday stated on SSN that he " wondered how those in the the corridors of power of the FL could sleep at night" ...or words similar...this to me indicates that further sanctions were almost definate..despite what the FL statement says ..or tries to say in a very carefully scripted way ... Bastards ! MLT also had a snipe about the FL having a rule book but it was unlcear if they would ever follow it or not. He certainly feels the fault is with the league even if the final issue was pinnacle losing its money men. It will be interesting if anyone else does jump in now and the league leave things at the -10 points or impose further points. 15 mil and start on -10 is a bit of a kick but 15 mill and any more points deductions seems a stupid decission IMO and if the league state there will be more I guess buyers will want a cheaper deal from Fry.
Barry the Badger Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 (edited) They've given us -10 for going into admin and will give us another -15 for no CVA. All by the rule book, anything else exists in people's heads. Maybe you're right, but personally I cannot get the image out of my head of Mawhinney grinning away with a look of pride as he announced to SSN that the FL were right all along and we would get the -10. Is it too much to ask for the FL figurehead to not actually look happy about applying a 'sporting sanction' to a club? I know it was just one interview, but since then I have struggled to view the FL as anything other than a bunch of suits congratulating eachother and taking pleasure in our demise with a 'that'll show them' attitude. Edited 1 July, 2009 by Barry the Badger
Running Man Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 I actually think the FL statement is pretty ambiguous, and you only need to look at the stark difference in the interpretations on this thread already to prove it. They say that no other conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions has ever been raised with them as a major issue. However, while it could mean that the only obstacle was appealing against the 10-point deduction that we have already been given, it could also mean a waiver which prevents us appealing any additional deductions they may or may not have planned. While I'm not in any particular hurry to defend Lynam over this whole debacle, the Football League have clearly worded their statement such that it doesn't actually say whether the issue is just to do with the 10 points or whether they gave any information as to whether they were likely to impose further "sporting sanctions" even if the Pinnacle deal went through smoothly from that point. The FL couldn't have made a more meaningless statement if they were run by a second rate has-been politician.
saintjay77 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 i think all this "SFC is not in admin but SLH is therefore, give us our 10 points back" is actually quite..eeer, laughable By the letter of the FL's rule book SFC is not in admin and therefor shouldnt have got the -10 points though. I dont think we dont deserve the -10 and think its bloody cheaky to try and get out of it on a technicality but rules are rules and the FL make them up as they go along.
Webby Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Im not saying they have said it, but was this paragragh missed by some here? "They have also stressed very firmly to the Echo that further points deductions against Saints were not being considered". Yes, I saw that, but if they said that to the Echo, why isn't it quoted? Also, if true, and they did say that to the Echo, you'd think they would've said it to Pinnacle too, no? Echo lies to back up their headline methinks.
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 so..? So there are enough pointless arguments on this thread already, no ?
OldNick Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Surely the most damning thing is TL's silence in not coming out and telling the world what was the problem. The FL have made their stance tl let it be known that there was nothing exceot the -10 (sporting sanctions) Now if it was me Id be sure to come out and say 'no that is not correct it was xyz' He has nothing to lose as his reputation is down the swanny and if MLT has any sense so has his charitygolf days and friendship
fanimal Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 I go back to what I have said twice before; HOW can the FL sanction TWO assets sales from a Company supposedly in Administration???????????? can an accountant on the forum please clarify? Thanks!
saintjay77 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 Im not saying they have said it, but was this paragragh missed by some here? "They have also stressed very firmly to the Echo that further points deductions against Saints were not being considered". Splitting hairs but that wasnt a "quote" from the FL so how much is Echo spin and how much is fact? Did the Echo ask the FL is further points were being considered or did they ask if further points could be considered at a later date? If the extra points thing is the issue that Pinnacle were arguing about it could be that Pinnacle wanted a statement from the FL to say that further points would not be considered. Therefor sticking to the -10 and move on.
saintjay77 Posted 1 July, 2009 Posted 1 July, 2009 I go back to what I have said twice before; HOW can the FL sanction TWO assets sales from a Company supposedly in Administration???????????? can an accountant on the forum please clarify? Thanks! There is no transfer embargo on us so why wouldnt they? The administrator is in charge of the assets owned by SLH. If something needs to be sold to pay wages then the administrator will sell it. If there is nothing left to sell the administrator will shut the doors. Dont see what the FL can do about it
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