Football League: "There were no other issues"

[Rogerfryisalegend]

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.

hence why i said " Im not saying they have said it, but was this paragragh missed by some here?" my point of people not reading has been proven, cheers

[saintjay77]

hence why i said " Im not saying they have said it, but was this paragragh missed by some here?" my point of people not reading has been proven, cheers

 

I wasnt disagreeing with you. just commenting on what you said.

[alpine_saint]

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....

 

Christ, you are such a self-opinionated arse sometimes..

[Whitey Grandad]

The FL quote is, in my opinion, imprecise and disingenuous. There may well have been a document on the table waiting for Pinnacle to agree, but it may not have been to their liking, legal or financial, or maybe there were other compelling reasons as to why it was unacceptable. We can speculate all day but in the end, agreement could not be reached.

[SaintBobby]

I'd say that it is possible to find some ambiguities in the FL statement, but nearly impossible NOT to find ambiguities in Pinnacle's recent statements.

 

If it was an additional 15 points that was at stake, just say this loud and clear.

 

The whole way Fialka was rolled out to add "weight" and "substance" and the existence of a "few hundred million" was left entirely as a matetr of faith sugegsts to me that finance had become a major problem.

 

I'm not sure about the conspirac theories re: hoax/prank. My guess would be that the "few hundred million" was a bit optimistic in the first place - and fell away pretty quickly. Lynam and others were desperately scrambling to shore this up, but failed abysmally to do so.

[CB Fry]

Christ, you are such a self-opinionated arse sometimes..

 

 

Have you ever read anything you've posted yourself?

 

What are you disagreeing with exactly - have Pinnacle been transparent in your opinion?

 

Sorry, I am right - the extra 10, 20, and more points exists entirely in the heads of people on here aligned to various theories (Adriansfc's "Catch-22", "Look at Luton" etc).

 

My theory is different - I'm stopping at 10 points - and is of as much worth as the other theories because they are all speculation. My speculation is 10 points was/is our punishment, no more, but Pinnacle couldn't get the money.

 

What's the problem with that, Einstein?

[OldNick]

on another thread on here about fialka deal still on. He says that they are negotiating about an extra 5 point penalty.

[saintjay77]

Quotes from Fialka

 

“The reality is that there are a few issues with the Football League. We’ve had a bit of a standoff as we would only consider a deal if the penalty was 10 points rather than 15."

 

“I need confirmation. Once it goes through then everyone will be happy.”

 

Fialka revealed that, should the takeover go through, he would “end up with one third of the club and be the main director on a four-man board.”

 

Not sure if that means a total of 15 or an extra 15 but at least it confirms that the issue is over more than -10 points. so the sporting sanctions is not just about the -10 after all.

[CB Fry]

Quotes from Fialka

 

“The reality is that there are a few issues with the Football League. We’ve had a bit of a standoff as we would only consider a deal if the penalty was 10 points rather than 15."

 

“I need confirmation. Once it goes through then everyone will be happy.”

 

Fialka revealed that, should the takeover go through, he would “end up with one third of the club and be the main director on a four-man board.”

 

Not sure if that means a total of 15 or an extra 15 but at least it confirms that the issue is over more than -10 points. so the sporting sanctions is not just about the -10 after all.

 

 

According to multimillionaire Michael Failka.

 

I am sure the League may have gone through the ramifications of not completing a CVA (more points deductions) and as the Pinnacle clowns didn't have a pot to p*ss it, who can blame them?

 

I'm saying if Pinnacle were multi gazillionaires as we were led to believe and could satisfy all creditors, it would have been ten points, no question.

[saintjay77]

According to multimillionaire Michael Failka.

 

I am sure the League may have gone through the ramifications of not completing a CVA (more points deductions) and as the Pinnacle clowns didn't have a pot to p*ss it, who can blame them?

 

I'm saying if Pinnacle were multi gazillionaires as we were led to believe and could satisfy all creditors, it would have been ten points, no question.

 

I too question how much money was really available but for arguments sake lets say Pinnacle had the funds to complete the deal, they accept there will be -10 points, but the contract leaves things wide open for further points deductions. I dont think its unfair for Pinnacle or whoever might get to that stage to want the contract to state that will be all and there will be no further deductions.

 

SFC which is the company that is being bought is not legally in Admin so legally Pinnacle cant get a CVA. The league know that and as they bent the rules to give the -10 there should be no reson why they cant bend the rules to say there will be no more.

 

Personally I dont think pinnacle had it in them to complete but the same issues will be there for anyone else that wants to buy. And unless the League are prepared to state there will be no further issues with points deductions I cant see why anyone would stump up 15 mill on SFC.

[alkasteve]

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

 

I'm pretty sure if you're classed as being in admin then you've already got a transfer embargo - but generally it just applies to bringing in players rather than letting them go. This seems to have some info for what happened with Leeds - but basically we need the share back to do any kind of buying

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/6915926.stm

[Toadhall Saint]

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.

 

Sounds like The Echo have failed to actually consider what the FL has said, which seems to be a fairly politico-banal statement.

 

 

The FL also state that they were not considering further points deductions.

[CB Fry]

I too question how much money was really available but for arguments sake lets say Pinnacle had the funds to complete the deal, they accept there will be -10 points, but the contract leaves things wide open for further points deductions. I dont think its unfair for Pinnacle or whoever might get to that stage to want the contract to state that will be all and there will be no further deductions.

 

SFC which is the company that is being bought is not legally in Admin so legally Pinnacle cant get a CVA. The league know that and as they bent the rules to give the -10 there should be no reson why they cant bend the rules to say there will be no more.

 

Personally I dont think pinnacle had it in them to complete but the same issues will be there for anyone else that wants to buy. And unless the League are prepared to state there will be no further issues with points deductions I cant see why anyone would stump up 15 mill on SFC.

 

 

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.

[saintjay77]

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.

 

But if SFC is sold as a seperate company then its not "inextricably linked". The legal teams all seem to think they have a case to prove as such also but cant because the League dont want an appeal to happen.

 

The discussions between the perspective buyers and the Administrators will be to discuss the ability to satisfy the creditors. The league has nothing to do with that as it just wants to know that the Creditors have been satisfied. And if they havent then the CVA is not granted and there are further points deductions.

 

But if SFC is a seperate company that legaly is not in admin and proven to not be "inextricably linked" to SLH then the league have no way of getting the CVA for SFC.

 

Its a legal mess that has been created rashly IMO.

 

Fair enough that the league should punish us. And I think fair enough we should get -10 points. But the league needed to amend there rules to fit in with a situation like ours. Its not like we set things up to beat the system as we set things up like this 6 years before the rules were made. And at the time SLH had many companies with SFC being the biggest. I bet at the time there would have been no way they would have been "inextricably linked". its only since all the other companies have been sold off and folded that we are left with SFC being pretty much SLH's sole company and one in the same apart from the name.

[sandwichsaint]

Wotte a load of word wa^king!

 

What EXACTLY are the 'facts' as known?

 

1, Is there anything/anybody that catergorically says that Pinacle (or A.N.OTHER) could have (or still can) buy the club with a 'guaranteed' -10 points and a categorical assurance there is not more to come?

 

2, Where has it been 'officially' said that Aviva will write off the stadium debt for a one-off payment? This is surely a pre-condition to running a debt-free club and the only way SFC in it's current guise can trade as a going concern.

 

3, How do we know Pinacle had no money, they presumably had enough to pass Fry's due diligance tests, and had enough to lay out up to £1m so far.

 

4, What alternative models of ownership has Fry investigated? Has he looked into either the Council or a third party taking over a restructured mortgage on SMS, using it as an 'events' venue and new-Saints being tenants at SMS?

 

5, Do the Swiss exist?

 

6, Will the FL let us start in L1 if we have no take-over in place? (look at it this way, if the season started on Saturday would we be allowed to play our first game?)

 

Suggest there is not one person on this board who knows the answer to these 6 questions!

[saintbletch]

I thought I'd post this here instead of on the Lord Mawhinney thread.

 

I've just received a response from the FL to the email below. Although it says it is a standard response, it looks like a standard response to the Saints' issue given the last paragraph....

 

- 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.

 

What do you make of that?

 

Is this a comment relating specifically to the Saints situation? Or is it as the intro below suggests a standard response to all such sporting sanctions enquiries?

 

Full correspondence follows...

Dear SaintBletch

 

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.

 

 

 

I thought I'd take a different approach. As I am embarrassed that I couldn't be arsed to get passionate about this when the likes of Luton were being kicked to death by the Football League, I thought it would now be wrong to plead our special case. But I still think the FL has some changes to put in place. Will keep you appraised of any reply I receive.

 

SaintBletch to Lord Mawhinney[/b] ]

Dear Lord Mawhinney,

 

I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the Football League and in doing so I am trying to remove the emotion from my correspondence, which as a fan of Southampton Football Club is not easy given the problems we find ourselves in.

 

I ask you to consider two things:

 

1) Given the extraordinary state of the economy at this time that has given rise to quite incredible actions from governments and legislative bodies worldwide, should the Football League not reconsider its sporting sanctions policies against clubs that find themselves entering or close to administration?

 

In these extraordinary times we have seen massive, ancient and proud commercial institutions simply cease to exist and even well run businesses starved of the oxygen of credit also struggling. Should the Football League not review its sporting sanction regulations in the light of current economic uncertainty? Clubs that were run relatively responsibly are finding themselves, and will continue to find themselves sailing close to the Football League's rules on administration simply as a matter of being in business in one of the worst recessions in history.

 

Whilst in business we can afford to take a hard-nosed commercial decision and say that it’s survival of the fittest, in the sporting world I think the Football League has a moral obligation to do what it can to keep clubs in existence. Just as the government realised that banks simply could not fail, I believe the Football League must look again at the draconian policies that, whilst put in place for all the right reasons, are right now out of step with the needs of the majority of clubs.

 

Who is likely to buy a football club from administration in these times when the club would start the next season with incredible sporting penalties. Again I say that in “normal” times we could expect clubs to be able to be bought and trade/play their way back to some stability. But these are not normal times and with Setanta and ITV’s problems and the pressure on the BBC licence fee likely to leave Sky as the only broadcaster capable of purchasing the rights to air your organisation’s product, I feel that we can only expect broadcast income to fall for the majority of clubs in your structure. This will only lead to more clubs in your organisation finding themselves close to or falling into administration.

 

Any change to your rules here is obviously too late for my own club as the well documented problems of our parent company will already be judged by the rules you had in place at the time. But is it fair to penalise companies and the sporting clubs they act as custodian for when in "normal" times their outgoings would not so markedly outstrip their income? I ask you to consider creating exceptions in your rules to cope with this extraordinary problem. Clubs are not necessarily looking to outspend their opponents and nip in and out of administration to gain a commercial advantage. Instead I believe clubs, like every other business in the land are seeing reduced income from ticket sales as well as player disposal that they could not possibly have forecast whilst their banks are increasingly nervous to extend lines of credit to what in "normal" times might have been thought of as well run businesses.

 

2) Shouldn't any club in your structure be given free and unfettered access to an unbiased appeal against any of the judgements of the Football League?

 

I thank you for your time and look forward to your response in due course.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

SaintBletch

[CB Fry]

But if SFC is sold as a seperate company then its not "inextricably linked". The legal teams all seem to think they have a case to prove as such also but cant because the League dont want an appeal to happen.

 

The discussions between the perspective buyers and the Administrators will be to discuss the ability to satisfy the creditors. The league has nothing to do with that as it just wants to know that the Creditors have been satisfied. And if they havent then the CVA is not granted and there are further points deductions.

 

But if SFC is a seperate company that legaly is not in admin and proven to not be "inextricably linked" to SLH then the league have no way of getting the CVA for SFC.

 

Its a legal mess that has been created rashly IMO.

 

 

 

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.

 

Fair enough that the league should punish us. And I think fair enough we should get -10 points. But the league needed to amend there rules to fit in with a situation like ours. Its not like we set things up to beat the system as we set things up like this 6 years before the rules were made. And at the time SLH had many companies with SFC being the biggest. I bet at the time there would have been no way they would have been "inextricably linked". its only since all the other companies have been sold off and folded that we are left with SFC being pretty much SLH's sole company and one in the same apart from the name.

 

 

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.

 

SLH didn't have that many companies, and what it did have was three parts of bugger all. And it had barely any when we did go into admin.

 

 

At the end of the day, we'll get 15 points deducted if we don't satisfy creditors, not because the league are going to theatrically say "but you're not SFC so this CVA is not worth the paper it's written on, be off with you!"

 

If the new bods get a CVA then that is what the league will acknowledge and sign off.

[CB Fry]

Wotte a load of word wa^king!

 

What EXACTLY are the 'facts' as known?

 

1, Is there anything/anybody that catergorically says that Pinacle (or A.N.OTHER) could have (or still can) buy the club with a 'guaranteed' -10 points and a categorical assurance there is not more to come?

 

2, Where has it been 'officially' said that Aviva will write off the stadium debt for a one-off payment? This is surely a pre-condition to running a debt-free club and the only way SFC in it's current guise can trade as a going concern.

 

3, How do we know Pinacle had no money, they presumably had enough to pass Fry's due diligance tests, and had enough to lay out up to £1m so far.

 

4, What alternative models of ownership has Fry investigated? Has he looked into either the Council or a third party taking over a restructured mortgage on SMS, using it as an 'events' venue and new-Saints being tenants at SMS?

 

5, Do the Swiss exist?

 

6, Will the FL let us start in L1 if we have no take-over in place? (look at it this way, if the season started on Saturday would we be allowed to play our first game?)

 

Suggest there is not one person on this board who knows the answer to these 6 questions!

 

 

You do realise this is a fans message board? If you want nothing but facts you're in the wrong place, mate.

[Frank's cousin]

The only thing I can think of that would mean potential further points deductions is if the FL are not satisfied that the 15 mil paid for SFC to be 'debt free' is enough for the SLH to enter into a CVA as opposed to being teh best they can get... that would sort of make sense, as until the purchase is completed, FSFC are linked.... as we have seen teh FL has also previously punsihed 'new' clubs in this way otherwise a club in admin, could simply fold, satrt under a ne w'company' and thus expect to avoid the points deductions?

 

In our case I think teh figure agreed between Fry and the bidders at 15 was the minimum acceptable to the creditors to in effect enter a CVA - so I dont think the FL would be likely to add to te points deductions - I do think Pinnacle simply failed because the commitment for the backers began to crumble....

[Ponty]

TL's silence says it all, IMO.

[Gingeletiss]

TL's silence says it all, IMO.

 

Ponty............with respect, why should he say anything. Some of the posts allowed on here in the last 24 hours, has said it all. Posters wanting to smash his windows...posters offering him a face to face insult session.....posters wanting to know where he plays golf.......course he won't come on here and say anything......WOULD YOU??

[saintjay77]

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.

 

SLH didn't have that many companies, and what it did have was three parts of bugger all. And it had barely any when we did go into admin.

 

 

At the end of the day, we'll get 15 points deducted if we don't satisfy creditors, not because the league are going to theatrically say "but you're not SFC so this CVA is not worth the paper it's written on, be off with you!"

 

If the new bods get a CVA then that is what the league will acknowledge and sign off.

 

At the end of the day how you or I interprate the little information available to us matters not. If the argument is down to purly an extra points thing then i can understand it and if I was in a position to buy the club I would also argue it.

 

If its just down to Pinnacle and co wanting a way out as there funds have vanished then I can also understand that.

 

I wasnt impressed by the Fialka interview and I think thats when it all went to peices for them. Shame that didnt happen before the 21 days as someone more serious (if that person exists) would have had longer to get a deal completed.

 

Hopefully we will still have a club when Milwall turn up for a kick about.

[saintjay77]

Ponty............with respect, why should he say anything. Some of the posts allowed on here in the last 24 hours, has said it all. Posters wanting to smash his windows...posters offering him a face to face insult session.....posters wanting to know where he plays golf.......course he won't come on here and say anything......WOULD YOU??

 

im with you on that one. Anything that he comes out and says now will get shot to pieces by the few who think they have all the answers.

 

I wouldnt bother coming back just for some abuse. He may have had the best intentions but when it comes down to it he will have a mob after him for getting no-where fast.

 

best to stay clear IMO

[Toadhall Saint]

Ponty............with respect, why should he say anything. Some of the posts allowed on here in the last 24 hours, has said it all. Posters wanting to smash his windows...posters offering him a face to face insult session.....posters wanting to know where he plays golf.......course he won't come on here and say anything......WOULD YOU??

 

Yep - mainly because I'd want to put my point across. Afterall he did when he thought he had something positive to say. I'd have more respect for him if he did.

[Ponty]

Ponty............with respect, why should he say anything. Some of the posts allowed on here in the last 24 hours, has said it all. Posters wanting to smash his windows...posters offering him a face to face insult session.....posters wanting to know where he plays golf.......course he won't come on here and say anything......WOULD YOU??

Yeah, I would. I wouldn't want to open a Q&A session, because that would be a true exercise of pis*ing in the wind, but I would post up the facts as I knew them to be and the reason for the U-turn. He's been happy to use the forum as both a PR tool and a voice to the fans (and he's been more than welcome to, IMO) but some people would appreciate a bit of closure on the whole event.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by Webby

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.

Yes, quite.

 

It's suprising how many people seem unable to read it correctly.

 

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.

 

The FL will have some questions regarding the finance but only inline with it's rules. If Fialka was borrowing this money from any high street lender there would be zero issue, even if he could not afford a 2nd class stamp. What could be an issue is the money being provided from a source already involved in football or from an illegal operation.

 

Why anyone would want to quote Matty on this subject is beyond me, it's not as if his preparatory work here has been shown to be anything of a guiding light. What next, Paul Gascoigne being referenced on string theory?

 

Then if anyone wanted any conclusive proof just look over all the inconsistencies coming out from Lynham and this points to one thing only, finance. Then this continued charade regarding the FL being the nasty bullies, why would anyone who has been shafted to such a degree by the FL, not clearly state exactly what any other specific issues with the FL are? Obviously under a NDA forced upon them by the FL!

[Gingeletiss]

Yep - mainly because I'd want to put my point across. Afterall he did when he thought he had something positive to say. I'd have more respect for him if he did.

 

TS.........IMO, he acted in good faith. He was employed to act as the face of this bid IMO, he was let down by the money....he doesn't deserve to be threatened

 

 

IMO:mad:

[Gingeletiss]

Yeah, I would. I wouldn't want to open a Q&A session, because that would be a true exercise of pis*ing in the wind, but I would post up the facts as I knew them to be and the reason for the U-turn. He's been happy to use the forum as both a PR tool and a voice to the fans (and he's been more than welcome to, IMO) but some people would appreciate a bit of closure on the whole event.

 

 

Of course we'd like closure, and I'm sure that the facts will come out eventually. You and the admin team were more than happy to have him post on here, it gave credence to this forum, as being the voice of the Saints......pity you didn't have more control on the posters, when it all went wrong, and the hatred poured out of this forum.

 

IMHO of course

[Ponty]

Of course we'd like closure, and I'm sure that the facts will come out eventually. You and the admin team were more than happy to have him post on here, it gave credence to this forum, as being the voice of the Saints......pity you didn't have more control on the posters, when it all went wrong, and the hatred poured out of this forum.

 

IMHO of course

I don't think you actually disagreed with me there, tbh.

 

As for controlling the posters, well, it'd be a pretty lean userbase if we banned everyone who got upset that another set of tyrekickers have raised then dashed our hopes. I think we (the fans) have every right to be upset.

 

IMHO, naturally.

[*Halo*]

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.

 

 

I am not directing my post at you personally Webby, but rather just using this quote to address a point.

 

 

They [FL] have also stressed very firmly to the Echo that further points deductions against Saints were not being considered.

 

I note that this has now been mentioned to an extent on page 3 of this topic, and that it is not a direct quote (from the FL), but for the Echo to state so unequivocally that the FL have "stressed very firmly" that further points deductions are not being considered, leaves them very little wriggle room if the FL did in fact not give such assurances.

 

It would have been very easy for the Echo to say the same thing, without being anywhere near as firm in their statement as they have been. That is a long way to have to climb down if their statement is in fact inaccurate.

 

Furthermore, in relation to points raised regarding the plurality of the term "Sanctions" as quoted by the 'FL spokesperson', I am not inclined to see anything more to this than a referral to Section 3; article 12.3 of the Football League Regulations, entitled "Sporting Sanctions".

 

“Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue.

 

I may be wrong of course, but my reading of the quote is that the spokesperson is just making reference to the section and article of their regulations that Pinnacle took issue with, rather than inferring additional sanctions could take place.

 

Personally, I have been unhappy with the FL's stance toward us throughout this whole debacle, but, that is going on the information that had been made available thus far. Depending upon the accuracy of this article, this does cast a different light on my perspective.

 

Due to the fact that for Pinnacle's takeover to have gone through, it would be presumed that the creditors must have come to an agreement, that, for me, must have adequately dealt with the CVA issue. Maybe SFC Ltd do not have a piece of paper that says 'CVA' written on it to give to the FL, but the fact that SLH had agreement with it's major creditors to the deal surely resolves the CVA issue satisfactorily for the FL, given their stance of SLH and SFC being "inextricably linked". It would take some harsh pedantry of the highest order from the FL, to then hit SFC with further sanctions for not having a CVA, I mean, are we "inextricably linked", or not?

 

I for one, would be most interested to hear Mr. Lynam's reaction to this article.

[Gingeletiss]

I don't think you actually disagreed with me there, tbh.

 

As for controlling the posters, well, it'd be a pretty lean userbase if we banned everyone who got upset that another set of tyrekickers have raised then dashed our hopes. I think we (the fans) have every right to be upset.

 

IMHO, naturally.

 

Being upset is not the problem...........FFS I'm as p'd off as the next man, but I'm not threatening to go and smash his windows in. Rights to be angry are one thing........threats against another 'forum member' are another.

 

IMHO of course

Edited 1 July, 2009 by Gingeletiss

[OldNick]

........treats against another 'forum member' are another.

 

what treats are those? not another bag of crisps and a bottle of coke if we are good.

You're getting the old typing without reading that I have done for ever and a day Ginge

[Gingeletiss]

Ooops.............missed an 'H'..........

[SaintRichmond]

Ponty............with respect, why should he say anything. Some of the posts allowed on here in the last 24 hours, has said it all. Posters wanting to smash his windows...posters offering him a face to face insult session.....posters wanting to know where he plays golf.......course he won't come on here and say anything......WOULD YOU??[/QUOTE]

 

 

 

.... What would he come on here for ... to apologise for all the Bullsh*t over the past few weeks ......... to apologise for putting MLT in the firing line for facing the Media because he hadn't the GUTS to ?????

 

I'm not one advocating violence .... but in this instance I can certainly understand peoples feelings .......

 

On one ocasion, he literally said that all the talking had been done and it was time to complete the deal .......

 

LIAR

[Gordon Mockles]

[deleted]

Edited 1 July, 2009 by Gordon Mockles

[Stalypig]

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".

 

 

The FL also allegedly assured SFC that points deductions would not be applied to the football club if the holding company went into administration after the deadline. Hmmm...

[trousers]

I've just received a response from the FL to the email below. Although it says it is a standard response, it looks like a standard response to the Saints' issue given the last paragraph....

 

- 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.

 

 

What do you make of that?

Seems clear enough to me.....

[alpine_saint]

According to multimillionaire Michael Failka.

 

I am sure the League may have gone through the ramifications of not completing a CVA (more points deductions) and as the Pinnacle clowns didn't have a pot to p*ss it, who can blame them?

 

I'm saying if Pinnacle were multi gazillionaires as we were led to believe and could satisfy all creditors, it would have been ten points, no question.

 

See, you dont believe attributable comments that contradict your theories anyway.

 

I stand by my earlier assessment of you.

[Gordon Mockles]

Sorry, not sure what you are reading into the statement here, apart from actively looking for things to keep the conspiracy going.

 

Funny if the issue was lots more points being deducted, why hasn't Lynam and co been shouting it from the rooftops?

 

That's what I'd have been doing because it takes all the blame off me and onto Mawhinney and the League.

 

But not a sausage about it. Funny eh?

 

Conspiracy? Well, I think the dark Lord Lowe was behind this. After eating some babies & poisoning the water supply in Leicester, he made a shady deal with Lynam & a coven of twisted business associates. The plan - to use and abuse our friendly, trusting club talisman (in Le Tiss) as part of a cleverly orchestrated catalyst to win over the loathsome fans, to run SFC into liquidation, then would re-emerge from the shadows of hell and stop smugly grinning long enough to re-sink his teeth into the carcass of SFC (if there was any chance of some profit 3rd time around)...f*ck the fans!

 

Well, a bit far fetched but not implausible at St Mary's - theatre of dreams? Chamber of Horrors!

 

[As for the FL, I think their words are very interesting and totally sweep the carpet from the Pinnacle Charlatans but I do question the timing (now Pinnacle have been disgraced) and I think the matter could and should have been dealt with much more professionally - official annoucements through a FL spokesperson - avoids all the cloak and dagger/smoke and mirrors].

 

Also, it'll be interesting to see if we do get taken over, that the FL remain consistent with the words echoed this week and don't go about turn. Historically, you can't expect them to honour their words.

[The9]

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.

 

SLH didn't have that many companies, and what it did have was three parts of bugger all. And it had barely any when we did go into admin.

 

 

At the end of the day, we'll get 15 points deducted if we don't satisfy creditors, not because the league are going to theatrically say "but you're not SFC so this CVA is not worth the paper it's written on, be off with you!"

 

If the new bods get a CVA then that is what the league will acknowledge and sign off.

 

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.

[alpine_saint]

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.

[CB Fry]

See, you dont believe attributable comments that contradict your theories anyway.

 

I stand by my earlier assessment of you.

 

 

Oh do shut up you silly old woman. You just agree with whatever suits your screeching disproportionate horseguff day in day out regardless of what you said the previous day.

 

Some of us can still remember eighteen months of "GO INTO ADMINISTRATION NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW" from you, and then you giving your beloved administration a whole TWO WEEKS before you started bleating, *****ing and whining about it on here.

 

And your switching sides in the last week would give the audience at Wimbledon neck ache. We can't keep up with you. If it's Monday, it must be the league's fault again.

 

 

 

If you think I'm wrong, then I know I'm right because you haven't a clue about anything.

[Clifford Nelson]

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.

 

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.

[alpine_saint]

Oh do shut up you silly old woman. You just agree with whatever suits your screeching disproportionate horseguff day in day out regardless of what you said the previous day.

 

Some of us can still remember eighteen months of "GO INTO ADMINISTRATION NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW" from you, and then you giving your beloved administration a whole TWO WEEKS before you started bleating, *****ing and whining about it on here.

 

And your switching sides in the last week would give the audience at Wimbledon neck ache. We can't keep up with you. If it's Monday, it must be the league's fault again.

 

 

 

If you think I'm wrong, then I know I'm right because you haven't a clue about anything.

 

What have I switched sides on then ?

 

I am still of the opinion that administration was the best way forward. Not my fault it was ballsed up like every other decision the club is forced to make.

 

As for Fry, I have been less than impressed with him from the start, I only ever said that his role in SFC history could have been as monumental as MLTs if he found a buyer to rescue us. That he hasnt is painfully clear for all to see.

 

As for Pinnacle, I have been fairly ambivalent about their chances of buying us since about the second week of exclusivity.

 

So still not certain what I have changed sides on.

 

So, do everyone a favour and stop screetching like a hysterical teenage girlie.

[OldNick]

What have I switched sides on then ?

 

I am still of the opinion that administration was the best way forward. Not my fault it was ballsed up like every other decision the club is forced to make.

 

As for Fry, I have been less than impressed with him from the start, I only ever said that his role in SFC history could have been as monumental as MLTs if he found a buyer to rescue us. That he hasnt is painfully clear for all to see.

 

As for Pinnacle, I have been fairly ambivalent about their chances of buying us since about the second week of exclusivity.

 

So still not certain what I have changed sides on.

 

So, do everyone a favour and stop screetching like a hysterical teenage girlie.

How can you possibly balls up a way of going into administration? We did it perfectly, we spent above our means and the bank failed to support us any longer. I dont think there is a perfect way of administration, the administrators take a big chunk of your assets and then walk away at when there is no more to be squeezed. My accountant visited me this morning and he sqaid that years ago peole would getr 40p in the £ now they are lucky to get anything

[CB Fry]

What have I switched sides on then ?

 

I am still of the opinion that administration was the best way forward. Not my fault it was ballsed up like every other decision the club is forced to make.

 

As for Fry, I have been less than impressed with him from the start, I only ever said that his role in SFC history could have been as monumental as MLTs if he found a buyer to rescue us. That he hasnt is painfully clear for all to see.

 

As for Pinnacle, I have been fairly ambivalent about their chances of buying us since about the second week of exclusivity.

 

So still not certain what I have changed sides on.

 

So, do everyone a favour and stop screetching like a hysterical teenage girlie.

 

 

I love it when you just take my insults and fire them back at me because you haven't got the wit to come up with anything better.

 

Anyway, to business:

"The Football League has told the Daily Echo there is no truth in Fialka's latest claims of a potential 15 point deduction. A spokesman once again reiterated that there is no threat of further point deductions".

 

I know your beacon of truth hero Michael Failka said otherwise but maybe, juuuuuuust maybe, I am right and the punishment of ten points is what is on the table and no more.

 

As I have said so many time before, If you think I'm wrong, then thank christ it means I am so right.

[alpine_saint]

I love it when you just take my insults and fire them back at me because you haven't got the wit to come up with anything better.

 

Anyway, to business:

"The Football League has told the Daily Echo there is no truth in Fialka's latest claims of a potential 15 point deduction. A spokesman once again reiterated that there is no threat of further point deductions".

 

I know your beacon of truth hero Michael Failka said otherwise but maybe, juuuuuuust maybe, I am right and the punishment of ten points is what is on the table and no more.

 

As I have said so many time before, If you think I'm wrong, then thank christ it means I am so right.

 

LOL at CB Fry, the voice of "truth and reason" hanging off the every word of the Echo.

 

Talk about crediibility being shot-to-pieces...

[CB Fry]

LOL at CB Fry, the voice of "truth and reason" hanging off the every word of the Echo.

 

Talk about crediibility being shot-to-pieces...

 

 

As opposed to your scrambled brain logic of what your billionaire mate Michael Fialka said and your own dopey conspiracy?

 

I've got some credibility because I stand up and bring out the boring truth, not the jolly exciting "everyone's against us" durr-brained conspiracy. There aint no secret plot to deduct 15 points you spanner.

 

What a joke you are.

 

[Evo]

have Pinnacle been transparent in your opinion?

 

Yep, they've been f***ing invisible

 

EDIT: Sorry, you can carry on with the handbags now

[Wade Garrett]

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.

 

They proved it to Fry but not the Football League. I would love to see that proof for myself. Probably a hand written note by Fialka saying that he honestly honestly cross my heart and hope to die has got £30million.