the wedge Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Looking around the various media websites in the UK, there seems to be a reasonable amount of support for our plight. 606 and SSN users have posted some good words mixed with some mindless rubbish from the odd Portsmouth fan and Spurs fan. This has raised my spirits a little, if you're going to go down, it's always good to know that there are people out there who do genuinely care for how bad things have got for our club. What we need now is a final show of support from us the fans, I appeal to Luker and the club to just do anything to get rid of the remaining tickets and fill out the ground for what may prove to be the last game we play, unless someone is happy to buy a league one team. My theory on the OS' silence is that the staff must've been called into a meeting or briefing of some sort to clarify the club's situation, and the status of their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Lord Mawhinney on SSN now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Lord Mawhinney on SSN now Grinning inanely.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsie Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 The rules were followed. If you disagree, you haven't read the rules. We were bang to rights, legally and morally. An appeal would be an utter waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Lord Mawhinney on SSN now He seems quite chuffed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Lightjaw Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We now need to stand firm and show potential buyers that we will still be here next season. And for years to come as well. Agreed. All 4532 of us (2 being Hartlepool supporters ... or whoever we're playing in leagues 1/2 over the next 30 years). Just praying we will still have a club to support next year. I really fear the reduced income from gates will put investors off. All we will be left with is asset strippers imho. And we wont "walk" any league with a small wage budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Martini Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I'd like to say the reasoning behind the penalty. But lets just make sure we get that penalty this season. Forest might have nothing to play for by then so that could be in our favour. Three points are essential this weekend though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Mawhinney saying 'SFC has not been a shining example of football management' but he has sympathy for the fans. He says there is an appeal mechanism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Horne Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 At least the players can't use pressure as an excuse if we're crap on Saturday. Let's see them come and out and give it what for right from the first whistle. The least they can do now is give their all to tray and make sure we don't start next season on -10. This will be a St George's Day we'll never forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoozer Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I've gotten used to bad news over the last few years and thought I had become immune to the emotional reactions bad news brings but this has left a hollow feeling in the pit of my stomach. I'm not sure if I'm sad, angry, resigned, fearful or frustrated! Maybe all of the above. I really do now fear for our club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Mawhinney is an idiot. Grinning like he's enjoying it all. W*nker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appy Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Mawhinney is an arrogant gimp. Talking about the news with a huge smile on his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevvy Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Hi Saints, I'm sorry you've gone down. I'm a Norwich fan, it doesn't bring me any pleasure to see you go down even if there is now one less place for us. Neither of our clubs are having a great time right now. Hopefully we can both rise from the ashes in the coming seasons. As for Neil Doncaster, I wouldn't worry too much about a conflict of interests. He's far too incompetent to even realise he had one! Anyway, with a bit of luck he won't have anything more to do with Norwich City in the future. Good luck to you. Cheers ASod, Lets hope you stay up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 He kept stringing out the same fact over and over, didnt tell us anything we didnt know already. Useless bumbling tosser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Mawhinney saying 'SFC has not been a shining example of football management' but he has sympathy for the fans. He says there is an appeal mechanism. haha he can talk!! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Rich, you obviously have no clue how administrators work. There is NO way that he will incur legal costs, on the chance that the Club will somehow avoid a 10 point deduction and somehow increase the asset value of SLH. The main reason for this is that an administrator does not have the protection in law that a company does, ie he is PERSONALLY liable for any losses to the creditors, that occur as a result of his actions. A new owner will probably throw a few quid at a law suit, if they think it is worth the effort, but the cost of doing this has already been/will be knocked off the value of SLH... Mate, the game is up... Not entirely true. If and administrator had an open and shut case he would incur the legal costs as it would likely realise greater returns for creditors. Unfortunately I don;t beleive that we have an open and shut case. What commonly happens in these situations is that the Administrator will go to the major creditors (i.e. Aviva and Barlcays) and ask them to fund the legal action. Baclays MAY be prepred to fund the costs of an appeal, however this will depend upon the advice that they are being given with regard to the cost and likely % chance of success. They will also have a feel for how much less they are now likely to get (if anything) for the club if the penaty remains, which will also factor into the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobM Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Let's just hope that any potential investors waiting to know what league we will be in next season now come forth with the cash. It's now clear we will be in league 1, so let's hope things start moving forward in terms of finding a buyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 To be honest, what Mawhinney is saying is true. The parent company and the club are both linked. You can't argue with that. What I don't understand is why we'd bother contesting the decision. The Football League would never revoke their decision, and any appeal would put us at risk of being handed a further punishment. The last thing we'd want is to start on -17, or worse -30! In my opinion, we should just accept the decision, continue our search for a potential buyer and look to rebuild our club. To appeal and drag this whole thing out just seems a waste of both time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsarum Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Yep. You utter plonker, Lowe! You too, Wilde! Many of us were pleading for the club to go into Administration before the March deadline. To go into it a few days later is incompetence of the highest order. Thanks to your maladministration, and if we still exist, we will start League 2 with minus 10 points, without most of even the Academy kids, the way it is looking. You have failed us on all counts. And the consequences will be with us forever. Totally agree eelpie. It must have been obvious to all our Directors (incl. Mr's Lowe, Wilde, Jones) the terrible financail position we were in on March 26th, our position could not have got much worse in the few days betweb then and when we went into adminstration. What have we gained from the delay into going into administration apart from an almost certain 10 points deduction at the start of next season. Well done one and all, i wonder who Rupert will blame for this gross error, as it obviously wasn't his fault, after all nothing is ever or ever will be his fault!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 To be honest, what Mawhinney is saying is true. The parent company and the club are both linked. You can't argue with that. What I don't understand is why we'd bother contesting the decision. The Football League would never revoke their decision, and any appeal would put us at risk of being handed a further punishment. The last thing we'd want is to start on -17, or worse -30! In my opinion, we should just accept the decision, continue our search for a potential buyer and look to rebuild our club. To appeal and drag this whole thing out just seems a waste of both time and money. I agree with that. No chance we would ever win any appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/07/leedsappeal Thus makes grim reading if the HRMC vote against CVA which it appears they always do we were up wih our payments to them a few weeks ago.Therefore our liabilites to them should be manageable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevvy Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I agree with that. No chance we would ever win any appeal. '+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I agree with that. No chance we would ever win any appeal. NO POINT taking legal action against Football League Blaziers , should sue whoever told Rupert not to go into admin at christmas because the League cannot touch you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobM Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11695 They will appeal then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 But then Leicester's fans didn't sh*t on them did they. How many Mandaric outs we're there on their forum and in their local rag? How many said Mandaric took us down, I won't go again till he's gone. The fans who decided not to turn up,for whatever reason, have their share of the blame. If just 1000 more had attended each home game we'd be 400K£ better off and not in such a dire state. If only Skacel had ****ed off to Ipswich when he had the chance we'd be laughing even now. Comparing apples and pears. Mate of mine is a Foxes fan and there was a lot of Mandaric out sentiment but much as I dislike the man, he puts his money where his large mouth is. He is also an owner, Lowe was a CEO with a sub-6% stake and therefore an employee. Not having a pop, just stating facts. Fans see what Askham and co have taken out and want a totally fresh start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 No other club has managed to get one. So why would we? Because amazingly HMRC are not amongst the major creditors (as far as we know) & they are the ones that always refuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Rich, you obviously have no clue how administrators work. There is NO way that he will incur legal costs, on the chance that the Club will somehow avoid a 10 point deduction and somehow increase the asset value of SLH. The main reason for this is that an administrator does not have the protection in law that a company does, ie he is PERSONALLY liable for any losses to the creditors, that occur as a result of his actions. A new owner will probably throw a few quid at a law suit, if they think it is worth the effort, but the cost of doing this has already been/will be knocked off the value of SLH... Mate, the game is up... GM, I used to work for an administrator. I have a clue. Provided the legal costs don't outweigh the difference to the value of the asset and there is a decent liklihood of success, he will have to challenge it, especially if the case is as strong as it appears. It will come down to the costs of challenging against what stands to be lost by not challenging. Can't imagine the fees would be that massive. Anyway, that's his call, he has the facts and figures to make the commercial decision, I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 It's outrageous that the Norwich City bloke could be party to this decision. I just hope those carrot munching bast*r*ds go down too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Barclays MAY be prepred to fund the costs of an appeal, however this will depend upon the advice that they are being given with regard to the cost and likely % chance of success. They will also have a feel for how much less they are now likely to get (if anything) for the club if the penaty remains, which will also factor into the decision. Please be objective, Clapham, even if it is difficult. Barclays will not do anything of the sort and you and I know it. The game's up and the sooner we get used to it, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponto1963 Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I wish I had been wrong but I said this is what the League would do. Since we are already heading for relegation we will start next season 10 points down. Why oh why did those idiots Lowe, Cowan, Jones and Wilde carry on beyond the March deadline? To totally stuff the club that's why; in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Ive had my first text from a gloating pompey fan..altho it wasnt as bad as i thought, something about using SMS as a training ground while they ready for their 50k seat stadium.I did reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Ive had my first text from a gloating pompey fan..altho it wasnt as bad as i thought, something about using SMS as a training ground while they ready for their 50k seat stadium.I did reply. That's a good idea! We need all the extra revenue that we can find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 To totally stuff the club that's why; in my opinion. So why the **** would they do that and lose the value in their shares (after all they are only in it for the money right?), whilst also making themselves liable for charges for not acting in the Company's best interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 The report doesn't claim SLH is an asset of SFC. It does say: You're the lawyer RR but I can't see that we have a leg to stand on. But Len, it does. "...the Board concluded that an administrator had been appointed in respect of the Club or part of its undertaking or assets". The only bit an administrator has been appointed over is SLH, which is not an asset or undertaking of SFC. Also, the economic entity argument doesn't work as a matter of company law, where each company is its own legal entity (I won't bore you with the theory). The league are plainly wrong on this one, and from the adminstrator's statement, it looks like the advice they are getting is the same. I've been chatting to other colleagues, some of whom are insolvency experts, and no-one can understand the decision from a legal perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Ive had my first text from a gloating pompey fan..altho it wasnt as bad as i thought, something about using SMS as a training ground while they ready for their 50k seat stadium.I did reply. Might as well, beats using Soton Uni's like they do at the moment! There's always a few morons but the Pompey fans that I've spoken to today were sympathetic and worry that they will go down next year and may head the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 It's outrageous that the Norwich City bloke could be party to this decision. I just hope those carrot munching bast*r*ds go down too. Doubt if he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I hear Salisbury City are preparing to buy us out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny R Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Hi Saints, I'm sorry you've gone down. I'm a Norwich fan, it doesn't bring me any pleasure to see you go down even if there is now one less place for us. Neither of our clubs are having a great time right now. Hopefully we can both rise from the ashes in the coming seasons. As for Neil Doncaster, I wouldn't worry too much about a conflict of interests. He's far too incompetent to even realise he had one! Anyway, with a bit of luck he won't have anything more to do with Norwich City in the future. Good luck to you. Cheers mate. Hopefully we can relegate that **** Billy Davies on the last day for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 NO POINT taking legal action against Football League Blaziers ' date=' should sue whoever told Rupert not to go into admin at christmas because the League cannot touch you[/quote'] Rupert probably convinced himself, being God who thinks he can do no wrong. The truth is that it was his and Wilde's responsibility to make themselves aware of the FL Rules. That was their job, for which they were paying themselves handsomely. How he could believe that the holding company which he created and which had no other business interests was a separate entity from the SLH plc is mind-boggling. SFC provided his wages ffs. And how come SLH plc did not operate with separate business interests? Ever since the formation of the plc surely they should have. (Certainly activities a little more serious than ie failing local radio station etc). SLH's business enterprises should have been returning profits at some point. (And weren't retirement homes one of them? Other clubs owned by holding companies have been doing so (present credit-crunch-times excepted), and therefore their holding companies have been able to pump monies into their football club. Not Lowe's. Another mystery is why Barclays held off until after the March points-deduction deadline.I can understand a banker not been versed with FL regulations, but why did Lowe and Wilde not tell them? Imho there are grounds for sueing for gross incompetence either Barclays or Lowe/Wilde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aberdare Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 But Len, it does. "...the Board concluded that an administrator had been appointed in respect of the Club or part of its undertaking or assets". The only bit an administrator has been appointed over is SLH, which is not an asset or undertaking of SFC. Also, the economic entity argument doesn't work as a matter of company law, where each company is its own legal entity (I won't bore you with the theory). The league are plainly wrong on this one, and from the adminstrator's statement, it looks like the advice they are getting is the same. I've been chatting to other colleagues, some of whom are insolvency experts, and no-one can understand the decision from a legal perspective. "An administrator has been appointed in respect of the club or part of it's undertaking..." The football club's undertaking include using St Marys and paying coaches, which were being performed by SLH which is in administration. An administrator is therefore in control of some aspect of the football club's undertaking. Bore away, I've only been doing corporate stuff for about 30 years. If you are personally so confident of your interpretation I would suggest you offer to fight the case for no fee on behalf of the club. I believe you would however be wasting your time and effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 OK I still think there are some points to debate that could form a technical basis for an appeal We did not do a voluntary admin, it was forced. There could be a number of options here - did Barclays change their agreement? Why did they wait? Did they show incompetence/negligence in not acting a week before Did their delayed action give rise to a possibility to appeal simply about the -10 next season I still think that IF there is an interested buyer out there, then they would have already planned their finances around L1, then the 10 points will mean that IF they have wisdom they would plan for a second season - that would mean funding the cash flow for an extra 2 or 3 million at least, so thier offers would surely have to fall Now if this decision costs Barclays/Aviva that kind of money then there could be every chance that those operations may decide to take some form of action. Who knows, Barclays themselves have some leverage inside football with their sponsorship of the PL. As far as WE are concerned I feel we should accept this and move on - call it part of the getting rid of all that went before process. But I wonder if other minds may still think there is mileage in this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_No_7 Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 this is gonna run and run... http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/articles/article.php?page_id=11695 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackedoff Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Assuming the club survives, a 10 point deduction coupled with the team we,ve got then next season will probably mean more struggle and relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrek Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Looks like we're appealing! Sounds shocking by the football league... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Please be objective, Clapham, even if it is difficult. Barclays will not do anything of the sort and you and I know it. The game's up and the sooner we get used to it, the better. It comes down to pounds shillings and pence. A good chance of success, coupled with the chance for more cash from selling the shares in SFC if they win, might be enough to persuade Barclays to chuck a little more good money after bad. Of course, if they can't see the benefit, then there's no chance of them doing it out of pure goodwill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Assuming the club survives, a 10 point deduction coupled with the team we,ve got then next season will probably mean more struggle and relegation. Like has been discussed in another thread, we just have to hope that the new owners, if there are any, have a bit of money that they're willing to invest in the first-team, otherwise I fear you will be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Rupert probably convinced himself, being God who thinks he can do no wrong. The truth is that it was his and Wilde's responsibility to make themselves aware of the FL Rules. That was their job, for which they were paying themselves handsomely. How he could believe that the holding company which he created and which had no other business interests was a separate entity from the SLH plc is mind-boggling. SFC provided his wages ffs. And how come SLH plc did not operate with separate business interests? Ever since the formation of the plc surely they should have. (Certainly activities a little more serious than ie failing local radio station etc). SLH's business enterprises should have been returning profits at some point. (And weren't retirement homes one of them? Other clubs owned by holding companies have been doing so (present credit-crunch-times excepted), and therefore their holding companies have been able to pump monies into their football club. Not Lowe's. Another mystery is why Barclays held off until after the March points-deduction deadline.I can understand a banker not been versed with FL regulations, but why did Lowe and Wilde not tell them? Imho there are grounds for sueing for gross incompetence either Barclays or Lowe/Wilde. Agree totally with your sentiments and we won't be seeing 19C or any of his like on here again. No point in suing anyone, let's take our medicine, get a new buyer which sounds promising on the Fry thread and use the -10 as a motivator next season. Look at how it fired up Leeds last season at the start and they were -15. Lots of sympathy from other fans, they know how badly we've been let down over the last 5 years. Ignore any idiots on here who try and blame it on us fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 GM, I used to work for an administrator. I have a clue. Provided the legal costs don't outweigh the difference to the value of the asset and there is a decent liklihood of success, he will have to challenge it, especially if the case is as strong as it appears. It will come down to the costs of challenging against what stands to be lost by not challenging. Can't imagine the fees would be that massive. Anyway, that's his call, he has the facts and figures to make the commercial decision, I don't. I currently work for an administrator and agree completely with RR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Right, so what we now need to do is take a leaf out of Leicester's book and bounce right back. God, after the budget yesterday and then this.. Is there any good news around at the moment. SOUTHAMPTON TILL I DIE - DON'T CARE WHICH LEAGUE WE ARE IN, I'LL ALWAYS BE PROUD TO WEAR THE RED AND WHITE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I wonder what is meant about "the club stopped co-operating" with the forensic accountant. Sounds like we gave them the excuse they needed to dock us points Having said that, there must be some pretty big skeletons in the cupboard that is SLH's accounts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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