Have the FL backtracked ?

[Flyer]

 

Well, according to Malwhinney, we had a right-to-appeal, remember ??????

 

Saints had the right to appeal within 7 days of the judgement. They didnt.

 

The FL are only asking Saints to sign a waiver saying they will not sue or take any other action just like theyve done with all the other clubs.

 

Would you let anyone into your private club if they were going to sue you or would you make sure they couldnt do that before you allowed them in?

[alpine_saint]

Saints had the right to appeal within 7 days of the judgement. They didnt.

 

The FL are only asking Saints to sign a waiver saying they will not sue or take any other action just like theyve done with all the other clubs.

 

Would you let anyone into your private club if they were going to sue you or would you make sure they couldnt do that before you allowed them in?

 

Why do they need to ask for the wavier if our window of opportunity to appeal, according to the rule book, is over ?

Sorry, something doesnt add up.

[Beer Engine]

Why do they need to ask for the wavier if our window of opportunity to appeal, according to the rule book, is over ?

Sorry, something doesnt add up.

 

In the league regulations there is a specific right to appeal against the automatic 10 points deduction. You can only appeal if you went into admin/liquidation for reasons that were unforeseen and beyond your control - for example where you go bust because another club has defaulted on a debt to you. We didn't have grounds for that appeal and anyway there's a 7 day time limit from the date the FL notifies you of the deduction.

 

However, there are other ways of trying to get the FL's decision set aside. You could go to arbitration under paragraph K of the FA regulations. You might also try to get the High Court to review the decision either because it was patently unreasonable or because there was some defect in the process by which the decision was made. You would almost certainly fail to get the FL's decision overturned whatever route you took.

 

However, when agreeing to admit the new Southampton to the league, the FL want the certainty of knowing that the club will not throw the league structure into chaos by seeking to have the points deduction overturned.

 

So the agreement by which the FL admit the club contains a clause by which the club agrees not to pursue any action or take any steps to try and get the points deduction overturned.

 

Strictly speaking the club is giving a much wider undertaking than a waiver of appeal rights and the term "appeal" in this context is misleading.

[Flyer]

Why do they need to ask for the wavier if our window of opportunity to appeal, according to the rule book, is over ?

Sorry, something doesnt add up.

 

The opportunity to appeal to the FL is over but Saints could launch legal action, legal action that could mess up the entire L1 season.

 

Its completely legitimate for the FL to not want this to happen, its not a witch hunt and the FL arent sitting at home rubbing their hands together saying "excellent" Mr Burns style.

 

Everything thats come out has pointed to the pinnacle group being complete jokers and it being entirely their fault.

[Wade Garrett]

Why do they need to ask for the wavier if our window of opportunity to appeal, according to the rule book, is over ?

Sorry, something doesnt add up.

 

 

What doesn't add up is that Pinnacle never proved funds to the League. Head out of sand time my friend.

[Red and White Army]

What other reason is there for the possible reopening of the Fialka/Pinnacle bid ? What the FL said in private to Pinnacle being different than their public statements before ?

 

Maybe sanity has prevailled at the FL at last, and a few suits have realised that driving clubs out of existence benefits nobody.

 

Either that or there has been some SERIOUS communication issues between Pinnacle and the FL, and that seems unlikey considering how long the communication loop has taken sometimes.

 

Or, you were completely and utterly wrong about the FL blocking the takeover, like you are compeletely and utterly wrong about every other view you hold on my great football club.

[Red and White Army]

I find is fascinating the way alpine saint holds all these pet theories that are one by one disproved and he never ever admits he is wrong. He concocts ever more elaborate plots in his little mind which - in Austria - allow him the luxury of thinking he was never a gullible fool taken in by Lynam, or an idiot for thinking administration was a good option for my club. Or that Crouch is the saviour of the club and the only one ever to put money in - all utter bullocks.

[saintjay77]

I find is fascinating the way alpine saint holds all these pet theories that are one by one disproved and he never ever admits he is wrong. He concocts ever more elaborate plots in his little mind which - in Austria - allow him the luxury of thinking he was never a gullible fool taken in by Lynam, or an idiot for thinking administration was a good option for my club. Or that Crouch is the saviour of the club and the only one ever to put money in - all utter bullocks.

 

I dont see how they have been disproved to be honest. Sure plenty of people have differing opinions but the FL statement can be read 2 different ways so it looks like there is some room for the FL to change direction when ever it wants.

 

I posted this earlier

 

"The statements that the FL have said have had most of us urguing on what they could mean so its funny that Pinnacle now all of a sudden see the quotes as proof there will be no further sanctions. Unless they are now expecting the league to deny there statement suggests there will be no follow on punnishments?

 

It could be that Pinnacle are trying to be clever.

 

Take a 50/50 statement by the FL

State it means no further punnishments 100%

If the league dont deny it and then hit us with further points at a later date then the league will look like the bad guys.

If the league come out and say there statement does not eliminate the possability of further punnishment then Pinnacle are the ones looking like they were right to walk away money or not."

 

The argument on Pinnacle having money or not is 1 thing but that doesnt mean that the FL have cleared things up with a nice simple statement.

 

Some people like to jump on alpine because he is just as quick to jump on them. I think some of his points in this thread do make some sence but neither he or I or anyone other than the FL can be sure if they are right or wrong.

 

nothing wrong with considering it though,

[saints triumph]

I am not personally insinuating that Mawhinney is anything. Yes the email is genuine, all i have done is share it with this forum. Any of you who want a copy PM me your email addresses and i will copy it too you.

At the end of the day any of you can come to your own conclusion about what it does or does not mean but for once it is a conclusive response from the league (and lets face it they did not have to reply) rather than some of the recent comments from frustrated fans on this forum who they claim are ITK or are whizz kids in the business world and think everything is black and white.

 

As I said above all I have done is share it with you. Make of that what you will.

 

I would like a copy of that email. As you are not a full member I can't send you a PM with my email address on.

[aberdare]

Well, according to Malwhinney, we had a right-to-appeal, remember ??????

 

Very VERY clearly stated in the FL regulations as being made within 7 days of the penalty being imposed.......

 

There was a right to appeal, no one did so.

 

[doh point made previously by others]

Edited 3 July, 2009 by aberdare
probably needs deleting.

[CB Fry]

I find is fascinating the way alpine saint holds all these pet theories that are one by one disproved and he never ever admits he is wrong. He concocts ever more elaborate plots in his little mind which - in Austria - allow him the luxury of thinking he was never a gullible fool taken in by Lynam, or an idiot for thinking administration was a good option for my club. Or that Crouch is the saviour of the club and the only one ever to put money in - all utter bullocks.

 

 

The bonkers theories go back further than that.

 

George Burley was losing games on purpose because that was the best way for him to keep his job, keeping us down in the CCC meant that Burley would get a longer contract, but getting promoted to the Prem meant he would get "found out". Or something.

 

Dear old Alpine comes from the Mo Al Fayed school of self assured top of head nonsense. Don't think any of us will ever get through to him with awkward stuff like, you know, "truth" or "reality". He's pretty special like that.

[saintjay77]

Very VERY clearly stated in the FL regulations as being made within 7 days of the penalty being imposed.......

 

There was a right to appeal, no one did so.

 

[doh point made previously by others]

 

we didnt find out about the 7 days bit till recently. Malwhiney answered a question that he was asked in reference to any appeal and he said that we would be able to apeal.

 

Even administrators said they prepared things so that any future owners would be able to take up that apeal so either someone messed up or the FL changed its stance.

 

The FL have backtracked on what they have said a few times.

 

That doesnt make us in the right or show Pinnacle are any good. but it shows the FL are willing to bend there own rules to suit the mood they are in when they get out of bed everyday.

[CB Fry]

we didnt find out about the 7 days bit till recently. Malwhiney answered a question that he was asked in reference to any appeal and he said that we would be able to apeal.

 

Even administrators said they prepared things so that any future owners would be able to take up that apeal so either someone messed up or the FL changed its stance.

 

The FL have backtracked on what they have said a few times.

 

That doesnt make us in the right or show Pinnacle are any good. but it shows the FL are willing to bend there own rules to suit the mood they are in when they get out of bed everyday.

 

 

Yes we did - the 7 days thing was common knowledge and clear as you like on the day we had the deduction - the opportunity to appeal was back in April. Google it.

 

The FL have not back tracked, on anything, at all, since they deducted the 10 points.

Edited 3 July, 2009 by CB Fry

[saintjay77]

Yes we did - the 7 days thing was common knowledge on the day we had the deduction.

 

The FL have not back tracked, on anything, at all, since they deducted the 10 points.

 

so if it was known on the same day we got the points why did the administrators just prepare an apeal for anyone who took over? bare in mind at the time they had no idea who would be the new owners and we still had a 21 day exclusivity period to wait? thats a fair bit past the 7 days is it not?

 

personally i think the administrators missed the print on the 7 days and as such messed up. but malwhiney was asked directly on ssn if new owners woud be able to apeal and he clearly said they would.

 

seeing as he now says we cant and convieniently brings up the 7 days that says to me they back tracked.

 

im not saying the 7 days dont exist but the FL didnt make it clear on SSN and the administrators missed it in the rule book.

 

anyway im going back to bed lol

[CB Fry]

so if it was known on the same day we got the points why did the administrators just prepare an apeal for anyone who took over? bare in mind at the time they had no idea who would be the new owners and we still had a 21 day exclusivity period to wait? thats a fair bit past the 7 days is it not?

 

personally i think the administrators missed the print on the 7 days and as such messed up. but malwhiney was asked directly on ssn if new owners woud be able to apeal and he clearly said they would.

 

seeing as he now says we cant and convieniently brings up the 7 days that says to me they back tracked.

 

im not saying the 7 days dont exist but the FL didnt make it clear on SSN and the administrators missed it in the rule book.

 

anyway im going back to bed lol

 

It was clear that we had 7 days. Sorry it was.

 

Not sure how your assessment of Fry not preparing an appeal is then evidence of the league back tracking.

 

This appeal thing is a complete red herring anyway, forget it.

 

If you were running a club (ie a league), would you take on a new member who was determined to drag that club through the courts for the next nine months? Would you?

 

Or would you say, maybe we don't want you in our club, and if you want to drag us through the courts then fine, just don't drag the rest of our club through it as well.

[Pancake]

Classic thread.

[alpine_saint]

You're an idiot. What exactly are these 25 points for? Which clubs have been deducted those kind of totals before and why have they been deducted them?

 

Get an education before you spout off about things you know simply nothing about. Nothing at all.

 

What a truly ridiculous post. It seems your desperation to portray yourself as a hard man has got in the way of rationality.

 

Heres one club who got hit MORE points than that : Luton

 

A club is deducted 10 points for going into admin, then additional points for not haveing a CVA when they come out of admin. Thought you would know that before running your mouth off and stating your opinions as fact.

 

As for the education, that one is truly hillarious. Firstly you dont know me, or how highly I am educated, but I'd put money on the fact that its higher than you. A lot higher.

 

And secondly, you must tell me where you received this education in Joint Honours in Fly-On-The-Wall During Confidential Football Club Takeover Negotiations with Mind Reading / Crystal Ball Gazing..

[alpine_saint]

we didnt find out about the 7 days bit till recently. Malwhiney answered a question that he was asked in reference to any appeal and he said that we would be able to apeal.

 

Even administrators said they prepared things so that any future owners would be able to take up that apeal so either someone messed up or the FL changed its stance.

 

The FL have backtracked on what they have said a few times.

 

That doesnt make us in the right or show Pinnacle are any good. but it shows the FL are willing to bend there own rules to suit the mood they are in when they get out of bed everyday.

 

Exactly, the FL have been playing the classic "It's my ball, I'm taking it away" game.

[Frank's cousin]

My concern with the FL is that they ahve still not ctagorically stated that there will nbe no further sporting sanctions after a takeover...because it will depend on the nature of the deal I guess, but that could be an issue for any of the parties even those with real money....

[slickmick]

I dont agree.

 

Pinnacle proved funds to the administrator, so proving it to the FL should have been a doddle.

 

I simply dont believe the FL. They tried to go for -25 by playing hard-ball, and its blown up in their face.

 

Some of you probably think that the FLs statement means that anyone else who wants to buy SFC can expect to lose no more than 10 points. B*ll&cks I say. Why ?

 

Well, according to Malwhinney, we had a right-to-appeal, remember ??????

 

 

Duncan put a post up that got removed, it had the four names that were the Pinnacles original consortium I beleive.

That is what the administrators were basing their proof of funding on. That then changed and we got presented with Fialka.

Pinnacle may have stated they are back in the running, but they have stated a lot of things that have been false.

But you prefer to take the word of someone who has hoodwinked us on more than one occasion, rather than beleive what the Football League have said publicly.

If Pinnacles only reason for not persuing were fears of extra points deduction, then why did they not say so ?

[alpine_saint]

Duncan put a post up that got removed, it had the four names that were the Pinnacles original consortium I beleive.

That is what the administrators were basing their proof of funding on. That then changed and we got presented with Fialka.

Pinnacle may have stated they are back in the running, but they have stated a lot of things that have been false.

But you prefer to take the word of someone who has hoodwinked us on more than one occasion, rather than beleive what the Football League have said publicly.

If Pinnacles only reason for not persuing were fears of extra points deduction, then why did they not say so ?

 

Erm, havent MLT, Fialka and Fry done exactly that on separate occasions ?

[slickmick]

My concern with the FL is that they ahve still not ctagorically stated that there will nbe no further sporting sanctions after a takeover...because it will depend on the nature of the deal I guess' date=' but that could be an issue for any of the parties even those with real money....[/quote']

 

 

Apparently its not worrying Pinnacle they have supposedly re-joined the race on the basis of that new statement.

[alpine_saint]

My concern with the FL is that they ahve still not ctagorically stated that there will nbe no further sporting sanctions after a takeover...because it will depend on the nature of the deal I guess' date=' but that could be an issue for any of the parties even those with real money....[/quote']

 

I share your concern.

[Frank's cousin]

Duncan put a post up that got removed, it had the four names that were the Pinnacles original consortium I beleive.

That is what the administrators were basing their proof of funding on. That then changed and we got presented with Fialka.

Pinnacle may have stated they are back in the running, but they have stated a lot of things that have been false.

But you prefer to take the word of someone who has hoodwinked us on more than one occasion, rather than beleive what the Football League have said publicly.

If Pinnacles only reason for not persuing were fears of extra points deduction, then why did they not say so ?

 

Thats what dont understand - I am not going to slag them off, because I simply dont know the truth, but they seem to have changed their story once or twice too often. I think the secrecy behind the money men, was precisley because it was a fluid situation - backers in and out as new info came to light during due diligence - THAT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL and I simply could not see why they were so hush hush about it - transparency leads to credibilty and also less of a kicking if something goes pear shaped. We woudl alwyas be dissapointed and think they had wasted 3 weeks of exclusivity, but if Fry based his decsions on who was originally involved and then 1 or 2 of these pulled out, at least we could understand that it was not all down to TL and MLT etc.

 

BUt this postruring and delaying tactics re the -10 points (when its known that the FL ask all clubsd to waive the right of appeal to avoid chaos at seasons end when final postions could not be known if someone is still in the courts) just seemed to erode any credibilty or confidence in the bid. I dont agree with the slagging of TL or pinnacle because I am sure they were serious, but they should have been realistic and not inflated our hopes with stories of '100s of millions' when this was not guarranteed.

 

I am also starting to believe that given MLT only came in later as a figurehead, this was really just a clever stunt to gain favour for their bid with fans....

 

Perhaps wwhat is also a little worrying IMHOP is that now there ios the rumour of LM potentially being lined up - LM and Crouch, have we not been there before?

[slickmick]

Erm, havent MLT, Fialka and Fry done exactly that on separate occasions ?

 

When asked what the reasons for them withdrawing Matt Le Tissier and Tony Lynham would not say why, other than other issues. When asked what those issues were Matt said he can't discuss that.

 

Why ?

[Frank's cousin]

When asked what the reasons for them withdrawing Matt Le Tissier and Tony Lynham would not say why, other than other issues. When asked what those issues were Matt said he can't discuss that.

 

Why ?

 

Because its suggest its money and they want their bid to remain credible... The loss of a backer late in the day for whatever reason, is not something they should get stick for HAD they been more transparent during the process - we could have sympathised - as these things are common place in business - but by being so confident, the '100s of millions' story etc - it won over fans, but also set them up for a greater fall if it went wrong

[slickmick]

Because its suggest its money and they want their bid to remain credible... The loss of a backer late in the day for whatever reason' date=' is not something they should get stick for HAD they been more transparent during the process - we could have sympathised - as these things are common place in business - but by being so confident, the '100s of millions' story etc - it won over fans, but also set them up for a greater fall if it went wrong[/quote']

 

 

Hence why they have re-joined the race. A race they have no intention of winning unless a real money man comes in (maybe a household name that some will recognise).

Its just a weak attempt at saving face thats more transparent than one of my double glazed windows.

[Pancake]

Reading this thread again, can I just remind EVERYONE to not be abusive towards other posters, not matter what their views are... Consider this a warning and infractions will follow.

[SaintRichmond]

IMHO, the FL talks with an "ambiguously forked" tongue

 

It is in their Rules that Clubs going into Admin are subject to points penalty's

 

It is ALSO intheir Rules that any Club CAN appeal within a certain time limit

 

In Saints case, we had long since gone past the time limit to launch an appeal

 

So, WHY is the League asking prospective Buyers to sign away thier RIGHT of appeal ....... ?????????

 

Because it is any subsequent FURTHER League sanction, ( from which of course, any "appeal" period would not start UNTIL the penalty is applied )

 

I do not recall The League saying we would NOT be subject to further penalty's ?????

 

NOT providing a CVA would trigger another -15 straight away

 

Pinnacle could have a point re "other issues" ........ The League say there are "no other issues" because, AT THE MOMENT, there arn't

[SaintRichmond]

.

 

And secondly, you must tell me where you received this education in Joint Honours in Fly-On-The-Wall During Confidential Football Club Takeover Negotiations with Mind Reading / Crystal Ball Gazing..

 

 

B.A hons Calcutta 2007:D

[slickmick]

IMHO, the FL talks with an "ambiguously forked" tongue

 

It is in their Rules that Clubs going into Admin are subject to points penalty's

 

It is ALSO intheir Rules that any Club CAN appeal within a certain time limit

 

In Saints case, we had long since gone past the time limit to launch an appeal

 

So, WHY is the League asking prospective Buyers to sign away thier RIGHT of appeal ....... ?????????

 

Because it is any subsequent FURTHER League sanction, ( from which of course, any "appeal" period would not start UNTIL the penalty is applied )

 

I do not recall The League saying we would NOT be subject to further penalty's ?????

 

NOT providing a CVA would trigger another -15 straight away

 

Pinnacle could have a point re "other issues" ........ The League say there are "no other issues" because, AT THE MOMENT, there arn't

 

 

If that was the case then why have Pinnacle not said this is their concern.

If they feared the rules weren't cast iron enough for them being penalised with a further point deduction then I' sure they would have told us this.

They didn't hold back telling us that the FL wanted us to sign a waiver, so why go quite now if this really is the reason ?

[aberdare]

 

im not saying the 7 days dont exist but the FL didnt make it clear on SSN and the administrators missed it in the rule book.

 

If the grounds for appeal were that SFC and SLH were entirely separate entities (something I would suggest Stevie Wonder could see they aren't), would not the administrator of SLH appealing on behalf of SFC rather lose the case before it even started?

[Frank's cousin]

If the grounds for appeal were that SFC and SLH were entirely separate entities (something I would suggest Stevie Wonder could see they aren't), would not the administrator of SLH appealing on behalf of SFC rather lose the case before it even started?

 

Does not matter in future whether seperate entities or not really - FL see the club as the club irrespective of who owns them - its teh entity with teh league status that is teh constant - if the FL deem that the club have gained an advantage by clearing debts as a result of new ownership they can impose further sanctions... thats what is not clear, will tehy, wont they and I can see why this might put purchasers off.

 

The FL need to clarify the situation so that potential bidders know the score really - would help all clubs if these rules were better defined.

[SaintDonkey]

Never thought I'd say this but I agree with Apline.

 

Tony was quite clear that there were issues with the contract put forwards by the FL, and quite forwards about showing it to the concerned parties (rememebr the interview with him leaving Staplewood when he made reference to the contract). Le Tissier was obviously one of those who had seen the contract offered by the FL and the unreasonableness of it prompted him to question how the FL sleep at night.

 

Since then the FL have gone on record saying the disagreement was about the right to appeal 'sporting sanctions' and that Pinnalce only needed to sign the contract (and put up the cash). They have now stated that there was no plan to impose any further penalties, but what they haven't said is the scope of the waiving of rights to appeal. I suspect strongly that the disagreement was over Pinnacle signing away the rights to any appeal over sporting sanctions, both the current -10 and any future sanction whether it be planned or not at this stage.

[Frank's cousin]

I suspect strongly that the disagreement was over Pinnacle signing away the rights to any appeal over sporting sanctions, ESPECIALLY any future sanction whether it be planned or not at this stage.

 

In a nut shell I would guess...

[dubai_phil]

This all comes back to a concept I posted before I came back to UK for 10 days.

 

ASSUME for a moment that the rumours or mixes of backers were unfounded and that Pinnacle were serious, professional and legitimate from step one, and I try to use words to indicate ideas not to describe actual facts

 

They make a non-refundable 500k deposit

They proceed through Due Dilligence at great time and effort and no doubt cost

They reach the end of the process and are faced with a letter that they need to sign which is "technically" not lawful in UK corporate law but extremely "normal" in terms of wishing to enter a "private club"

Legal counsel opinion is that they cannot sign that letter...

 

So there is an actual Nett result - the FL demanded signature on a contract and that caused the bid to fail, resulting in significant financial loss.

 

Now today, Pinnacle are not the owners of Saints, and in fact have no link to us whatsoever.

 

Which leaves them perfectly in the clear to take legal proceedings against the FL for damages resulting in loss of the money they paid out as well as loss of possible earnings.

 

If legal counsel's opinioon is that the FL decision was legally incorrect under UK law then 1) Pinnacle would win and 2) The FL would be proven to have been wrong in imposing the penalty in the first place and with it proven wrong in a court they would have to (ala Bosman) change their (now) illegal decision

 

In this way, TL et al get their money back, they get some recompense for what they lost out on by not owning the club AND we eventually get our 10 points back OR we have a case to claim compensation from the FL later in this or next season.

 

Pinnacle re-emerge as the heroes of the whole game.

 

Now I am not sure I have the terms or the process exactly right but I am pretty damn sure it is worth a chat with a lawyer

 

Get on it Tony - it is a solid case and I am sure you can find some no win no fee support out there

 

(Of course this all assumes that everything about the bid was complete and of course kosher) Which I am sure it was

[saintjay77]

It was clear that we had 7 days. Sorry it was.

 

Not sure how your assessment of Fry not preparing an appeal is then evidence of the league back tracking.

 

This appeal thing is a complete red herring anyway, forget it.

 

If you were running a club (ie a league), would you take on a new member who was determined to drag that club through the courts for the next nine months? Would you?

 

Or would you say, maybe we don't want you in our club, and if you want to drag us through the courts then fine, just don't drag the rest of our club through it as well.

 

So on your say so the 7 days was clear right from the beginning? Maybe you should give Fry a ring and see if he can offer you a job because he went away to prepare a case for appeal that any new owners can take up. Had you been there at the time he may not have needed to bother

 

The league didnt back track because fry didnt prepare a case. Because he clearly stated he was preparing a case on the OS so that new owners could move forward with it if they so wished.

 

And if I was running the league there wouldnt need to be anything drawn out in court because I would give a club that has a grievence there appeal. Take on any new information they may have and along with the others running the league take a vote in a fair and democratic way.

 

Not think "oh balls they might have a case so lets say something else so they cant come back on us!"

 

Have the appeal, admit that these circumstances dont fit in with the rule book, decide that while SFC is not in admin it is the cause for SLH being in admin so therefor have the -10 anyway and be done with it.

 

This could have been done without anyone losing face and all the other clubs in the leagues wouldnt have had grounds to try and re-open there cases.

 

Anyway I agree with one thing you said. its probably best to drop it cause none of it matters to us anyway. whats important is that someone takes over and we can look forward to watching some games again.

[saintjay77]

My concern with the FL is that they ahve still not ctagorically stated that there will nbe no further sporting sanctions after a takeover...because it will depend on the nature of the deal I guess' date=' but that could be an issue for any of the parties even those with real money....[/quote']

 

Which makes it completly understandable for any perspective buyers to seek clarification.

 

I think Pinnacle lost there main money men and thats why they didnt complete but even if there money was available I still think they would have been arguing this point.

 

We will no doubt find out if any other party get that close to signing a deal. If there legal teams see these waivers and details as being illegal no doubt they will also be advised not to sign. Will have to wait and see though.

[saintjay77]

If the grounds for appeal were that SFC and SLH were entirely separate entities (something I would suggest Stevie Wonder could see they aren't), would not the administrator of SLH appealing on behalf of SFC rather lose the case before it even started?

 

By the letter of the Law SFC IS a different and therefor seperate company to SLH. There is no way that can be argued. On that basis the legal teams and possible buyers think they have a case.

 

We can all see plain as day that SLH is in admin because of SFC but when someone rights down rules that all should follow and leaves a gap where others can pass through then the rules need to be re-written. The league, instead of making special conditions that suit case by case just change what they say on a week by week basis as they dont want to let people in via the back door.

 

Im not saying the league are wrong for punnishing us but I think they are very wrong in the way they are going about it.

 

Fry didnt have to appeal and your right its not his job to appeal. But if he knew the 7 days was an issue he only had to mention it in one of the many meetings with perspective new owners and they could lodge there intention to appeal within the 7 days. At any time they could have removed that appeal if they dropped out of the running. But at least the appeal process would have been started.

 

Now is it Fry's fault for knowing the 7 days rulling and not mentioning it? Fry's fault for not finding out about the 7 days? Leagues fault for not mentioning the 7 days and letting the administrators believe they had longer? Perspective buyers fault for not acting on information that Fry gave them within the 7 days?

 

We will never know but from what has been said publicly I believe the league are the ones that have messed up and are making a right balls up of it ever since. They are probably made right up at Pinnacle not having a pot to P in because it deflects away from any errors. But they will surly only get the same questions when someone serious shows up?

[saintjay77]

This all comes back to a concept I posted before I came back to UK for 10 days.

 

ASSUME for a moment that the rumours or mixes of backers were unfounded and that Pinnacle were serious, professional and legitimate from step one, and I try to use words to indicate ideas not to describe actual facts

 

They make a non-refundable 500k deposit

They proceed through Due Dilligence at great time and effort and no doubt cost

They reach the end of the process and are faced with a letter that they need to sign which is "technically" not lawful in UK corporate law but extremely "normal" in terms of wishing to enter a "private club"

Legal counsel opinion is that they cannot sign that letter...

 

So there is an actual Nett result - the FL demanded signature on a contract and that caused the bid to fail, resulting in significant financial loss.

 

Now today, Pinnacle are not the owners of Saints, and in fact have no link to us whatsoever.

 

Which leaves them perfectly in the clear to take legal proceedings against the FL for damages resulting in loss of the money they paid out as well as loss of possible earnings.

 

If legal counsel's opinioon is that the FL decision was legally incorrect under UK law then 1) Pinnacle would win and 2) The FL would be proven to have been wrong in imposing the penalty in the first place and with it proven wrong in a court they would have to (ala Bosman) change their (now) illegal decision

 

In this way, TL et al get their money back, they get some recompense for what they lost out on by not owning the club AND we eventually get our 10 points back OR we have a case to claim compensation from the FL later in this or next season.

 

Pinnacle re-emerge as the heroes of the whole game.

 

Now I am not sure I have the terms or the process exactly right but I am pretty damn sure it is worth a chat with a lawyer

 

Get on it Tony - it is a solid case and I am sure you can find some no win no fee support out there

 

(Of course this all assumes that everything about the bid was complete and of course kosher) Which I am sure it was

 

If Pinnacle have run out of funds to complete the deal that above seems very plausible for them to try and get some money back.

 

If thats the case then the league will be dragged through the courts for quite a while and it will be very messy for them. They failed to nip things at the start so if further action is taken they only have themselves to blame.

[CB Fry]

What a truly ridiculous post. It seems your desperation to portray yourself as a hard man has got in the way of rationality.

 

Heres one club who got hit MORE points than that : Luton

 

A club is deducted 10 points for going into admin, then additional points for not haveing a CVA when they come out of admin. Thought you would know that before running your mouth off and stating your opinions as fact.

 

As for the education, that one is truly hillarious. Firstly you dont know me, or how highly I am educated, but I'd put money on the fact that its higher than you. A lot higher.

 

And secondly, you must tell me where you received this education in Joint Honours in Fly-On-The-Wall During Confidential Football Club Takeover Negotiations with Mind Reading / Crystal Ball Gazing..

 

 

My question was about exactly why Luton got deducted those additional points - go and find out, and then explain why we would get those points deducted. That's my original question, but you won't ever go and find out because it blows your silly theories out of the water (clue - it isn't just CVA and admin).

 

And I never despute clubs can be deducted more points over the CVA issue - I've said it several times on this forum - but we're not talking about CVA deductions, are we, just "additional" points deductions from the league playing "hard ball" (your words). ie the league in your view deducting points for the sake of punishment.

 

I have said many times we may be deducted additional points for the CVA thing. But that is not under discussion with the league at present.

 

Not sure why you are claiming I'm the one with a crystal ball - it's not me aimlessly speculating with theory upon theory which gets endlessly rewritten when more facts appear. Alpine's hero Failka lied about 15 points, so Alpine has to make out the league has backtracked. Of course they have.

 

I am dealing in facts, you are just a conspiracy theorist. There's nothing I have said that isn't 100% in the public domain.

 

And you probably are educated (trust me, it isn't "much higher" than me) but do you ever read what you write?

 

If you are clever, why are all your posts filled with such malevolent bile and hatred for so many people, and you demonstrate so little grasp over how human beings in business, in administration, in life actually work?

[Beer Engine]

The Football League's action in applying the points deduction and requiring a contractual commitment from "new" Southampton not to challenge the decision is completely lawful.

 

The FA Arbitration panel has upheld these waivers in the past (see Leeds).

 

In addition, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of sports' governing bodies.

 

As I have been saying for weeks, this is a complete non-issue raised by Liarman and Fiasco as a smokescreen for the true problem which is that they are a pair of impecunious bedwetters.

 

Now can we please move on to the real world?

[aberdare]

The Football League's action in applying the points deduction and requiring a contractual commitment from "new" Southampton not to challenge the decision is completely lawful.

 

The FA Arbitration panel has upheld these waivers in the past (see Leeds).

 

In addition, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of sports' governing bodies.

 

As I have been saying for weeks, this is a complete non-issue raised by Liarman and Fiasco as a smokescreen for the true problem which is that they are a pair of impecunious bedwetters.

 

Now can we please move on to the real world?

 

+1

Perfectly summed up

[CB Fry]

The Football League's action in applying the points deduction and requiring a contractual commitment from "new" Southampton not to challenge the decision is completely lawful.

 

The FA Arbitration panel has upheld these waivers in the past (see Leeds).

 

In addition, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of sports' governing bodies.

 

As I have been saying for weeks, this is a complete non-issue raised by Liarman and Fiasco as a smokescreen for the true problem which is that they are a pair of impecunious bedwetters.

 

Now can we please move on to the real world?

 

 

Amen, amen, amen.