trousers Posted 17 April, 2009 Posted 17 April, 2009 derry said: SFC Ltd which is under their jurisdiction is NOT in administration. That is why they have called an enquiry. Why have they called an enquiry if it's that clear cut?
Window Cleaner Posted 17 April, 2009 Posted 17 April, 2009 trousers said: Why have they called an enquiry if it's that clear cut? Because they want to dock us 10 points but aren't sure if it is fair to do so.
Barry Horne Posted 17 April, 2009 Posted 17 April, 2009 Window Cleaner said: Because they want to dock us 10 points but aren't sure if it is fair to do so. Furthermore, they want to dock us 10 points but know that if they do, and it's not a totally watertight ruling, whoever takes over the club could take legal action against the football league. It all comes down to the smallprint in the rule book IMO and how it can be legally interpreted.
derry Posted 17 April, 2009 Author Posted 17 April, 2009 Barry Horne said: Furthermore, they want to dock us 10 points but know that if they do, and it's not a totally watertight ruling, whoever takes over the club could take legal action against the football league. It all comes down to the smallprint in the rule book IMO and how it can be legally interpreted. Pretty much. Already three sets of lawyers have disected the league's rule. They have obviously come to the same conclusion and the league already know the answer. Mawhinny is a politician, together with the committee, don't want their paw prints on this, so have handed the job of breaking the news to yet another group of lawyers, who will come to the same inevitable conclusion as the others at great expense. They will then display mock horror and declare that the 'loophole' will be closed. Firstly there is no loophole, the rule would only apply if SFC Ltd was in administration and it's not. In any event it is the FA/league rules which stipulated the public company had to be independent from the football club company. No club can sue the league having agreed to waive that right as a condition of entry to the league, they can only use the appointed tribunals of the league's grievance procedures. SLH Ltd can however sue the pants off the league if they cause them losses by damaging their asset, as they are a public company outside the jurisdiction of the football authorities..
CanadaSaint Posted 17 April, 2009 Posted 17 April, 2009 derry said: SLH Ltd can however sue the pants off the league if they cause them losses by damaging their asset, as they are a public company outside the jurisdiction of the football authorities.. The league has to err on the side of caution - especially if we get enough points to stay up. Can you imagine the potential damages if they deduct the points and force us down? And how screwed up things would be if part of the legal remedy was reinstatement? It doesn't bear thinking about, and the league has to know it.
derry Posted 17 April, 2009 Author Posted 17 April, 2009 CanadaSaint said: The league has to err on the side of caution - especially if we get enough points to stay up. Can you imagine the potential damages if they deduct the points and force us down? And how screwed up things would be if part of the legal remedy was reinstatement? It doesn't bear thinking about, and the league has to know it. Of course they do Bill, otherwise there would have been a clear statement a week ago reiterating the league rules and when and how they would be applied.
SaintRobbie Posted 17 April, 2009 Posted 17 April, 2009 derry said: Thats just it, we are not in administration, it's getting really frustrating pointing out to people who can't be bothered to read the information, or are really too thick to understand the most simple facts. SLH Ltd. the publically quoted owners of the whole shareholding in SFC Ltd (the club) are in administration. SFC Ltd, the club, are not in administration and are still trading. The significance of the club going into administration is the immediate penalty of 10 points deducted after the last match of the season if we are NOT relegated, which would then ensure relegation, OR in the event of being relegated already the 10 point deduction is applied at the start of next season. The league have a massive problem as the company in administration is a public company not in their jurisdiction. SFC Ltd which is under their jurisdiction is NOT in administration. That is why they have called an enquiry. That is why the sale of Dyer contracted with Swansea for about £500,000 should ensure solvency for the forseeable future. Buying time to sort out new ownership of SLH and avoid a 10 point deduction. No new owner given the choice would entertain not selling Dyer, and the football club as a result going into administration. Furthermore he is being sold, short of unforeseen events. Oh I see where you are coming from now! Sorry..understand now. (Although we shouldawait the outcome of Lord Mawhinney's independent review before we can confirm that one.) Lets hope you are right. Mind you be nice to keep Dyer in League 1 if a buyer can come in and tempt him to stay.
Amesbury Saint Posted 17 April, 2009 Posted 17 April, 2009 derry said: I am hearing all sorts of things now, but I'm damned if I'm going to put any of it on here. . I would rather you did post. it would be nice to have some new information rather than the continual debate about who is responsible for the mess.
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 Barry Horne said: Furthermore, they want to dock us 10 points but know that if they do, and it's not a totally watertight ruling, whoever takes over the club could take legal action against the football league. It all comes down to the smallprint in the rule book IMO and how it can be legally interpreted. It would be very handy if somebody could post the actual Football League regulation in question , all I can find are press summary's which may or may not be accurate . Or is it covered by the Official Secrets Act ?
wild-saint Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 TheCholulaKid said: **** me. This post (and the responses to it) sums up the quality of idiot that (in the main) populates this board. A benefit game v Leicester to save the club. Hahaha. If anyone considers that remotely plausible you need to be taken out of the gene pool. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/articles/article.php?page_id=11666 Oh my word, it looks like my info was correct doesnt it muppet. The fact is that leon Crouch has personally phoned Nigel Pearson and in principle he has agreed to play. It may not happen if the Dyer rumours turn ut to be true but it is clearly being planned. LEts face it who else is likely to play us Man U? Ha Ha Ha Back to the bottom of the gene pool for you son.
saintwarwick Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 wild-saint said: http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/articles/article.php?page_id=11666 Oh my word, it looks like my info was correct doesnt it muppet. The fact is that leon Crouch has personally phoned Nigel Pearson and in principle he has agreed to play. It may not happen if the Dyer rumours turn ut to be true but it is clearly being planned. LEts face it who else is likely to play us Man U? Ha Ha Ha Back to the bottom of the gene pool for you son. Your info correct? Where does it say a benefit game against Leicester on that link? Looks like you are the muppet. Suggest you do your homework next time before posting b0llocks.
John B Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 saintwarwick said: Your info correct? Where does it say a benefit game against Leicester on that link? Looks like you are the muppet. Suggest you do your homework next time before posting b0llocks. I am glad you posted that as I too could see no mention of Leicester and was wondering what the hell the original post was about
mattyd Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 There will be no administrators fee as SFC is not under his control.
SaintRobbie Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 mattyd said: There will be no administrators fee as SFC is not under his control. Good point - so who pays Fry? Barclays?
wild-saint Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 saintwarwick said: Your info correct? Where does it say a benefit game against Leicester on that link? Looks like you are the muppet. Suggest you do your homework next time before posting b0llocks. So i post that there is to be a benefit game against Leicester with a source alluding to an ex player. Then low and behold t days later an ex saint says they are planning a benefit gaeme. Just need to confirm the team i reckon, whatt do u think gene pool boy
derry Posted 18 April, 2009 Author Posted 18 April, 2009 wild-saint said: So i post that there is to be a benefit game against Leicester with a source alluding to an ex player. Then low and behold t days later an ex saint says they are planning a benefit gaeme. Just need to confirm the team i reckon, whatt do u think gene pool boy There has been a meeting, a game was put forward, it's not Leicester. The Dyer transfer fee may put it on ice or postpone it until after the season is over.
benjii Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 WTF would anyone want to go to a match against Leicester? Am I ******** paying for that.
derry Posted 18 April, 2009 Author Posted 18 April, 2009 benjii said: WTF would anyone want to go to a match against Leicester? Am I ******** paying for that. Can't you read? If there is a match and it isn't definite, it's not Leicester. That information came from someone at the meeting.
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