eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 think thats where the ground gets shakey. they came out and said the holding company can go into admin and it wouldnt effect the club cause they are seperate then on the back of grumbles changed their stance. the independant finacial review thingy was tasked with finding info out based on certain circumstances and when they tried to look at stuff that was outside the request they were told to get stuffed. the league came up with the decission under pressure from other clubs and if we do get to appeal somehow I think we have a good chance of rolling them over. that said we must be in a weeker position without the extra companies of the station and insurance so there is possibly enough there for them to win? Had Lowe not, over the years, decreased and not decreased SLH's non-football business he might have been able to swing it. The League is a club of members and every club makes up it's own rules which the state usually does not legislate against. eg 'Gentlemen only' clubs does not have to admit females. A court would rule that it is the perogative of the FL to make it's own rules, which members must abide by. (I bet Lowe belongs to a London Club, so he should know how Club rules work.) Lowe has been very naaive and foolish as well as incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I think it involved a nice meal and a film...... Do you mean film exists of the incident which led to the "union" of MW and RL ?? Who's that figure in the shadows Mike ? behind you......... ; - ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 (edited) No, what he stated as fact was that they were separate legal entities - which they are. Of course Crouch Potato then stuck his foot in it on Five Live by claiming Mystic Meg abilities over our corporate structure 8 years before the points penalties were introduced, Crouch's claim on Five Live was indeed ridiculous, not least because the PLC had been estbalished over 10 years prior to that. A rather foolish and incorrect thing to say, but not one IMHO that would cost us anything. However, what is/was a much, much, much bigger faux pas and one which has, and will continue to, cost us is the belief/judgement made by Lowe and co that the PLC going in to administration set up would actually be bought by the Football League!!!!!!!!!! If Crouch's faux pas is sticking his foot in it, then Lowe and co have jumped in with both feet up to their necks with that judgement!!!! Mind you, Mr Fry probably regrets making this statement t the BBC on the day the Club went into administration "The finances are interlinked therefore the future of the club is in serious jeopardy," said administrator Mark Fry. Edited 6 May, 2009 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Separate legal entities they may be, but that doesn't mean diddly-squate to the Football League, and even the most rabid among us must admit that the Plc and the FC are clearly closely tied economically. However Lowe & Co. have tried to dress it up, smokescreen etc. it was never going to wash with the FL... Perhaps someone can explain why, if SLH's revenue is almost exclusively generated by SFC, and it not being able to continue as a going concern, why SFC isn't in administration itself? The only way that can happen is if SFC isn't paying its "rent" on the stadium. If it were doing so then SLH's revenue (via the stadium co.) wouldn't have changed significantly. As I understood it, its repayments on the stadium loan were at a fixed percentage, so neither will its costs have changed significantly. So I still don't understand how SFC isn't in administration, unless it has a rent on the stadium payable (directly or indirectly) to SLH that varies according to the gate, which would be a very strange thing to do as it would have made SLH directly vulnerable to failure on the pitch, and strips SFC of some or much of any surplus revenue it generates from playing success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 the whole thing is a mess, companies everywhere? shame they all forgot you have to have a fairly succesful team on the pitch and win home games and the finances will follow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I would like to know two things from him : Who promised investment in 2006 and let him down, and why ? Why did he totally succumb to Lowe over the last year ? There are rumours ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 There are rumours ... Oh indeed there are, from very reliable sources too ; - ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Oh indeed there are, from very reliable sources too ; - ) Care to elaborate on these "rumors"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Care to elaborate on these "rumors"? have a look at my post no. 103 above ; - ) 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