CB Fry

Here's a clue:

....and the "kick a man when he's down" argument demonstrates the fundamental misunderstanding of why the 10 point punishment exists. Clubs living beyond their means and then kicking all their debts into the long grass to start again gain a sporting advantage over clubs that don't. That's what Leicester did when they binned their debts on relegation and scooted straight back into the Premier League debt free. That's called cheating. If we do survive, and I still think we will, we will have a massively reduced debt on the stadium, if not none at all. That's a sporting advantage, and that is what is corrected by the 10 points. And the players fans etc will benefit from that sporting advantage next season and onwards. If anything is "morally corrupt" its football clubs ****ing money up the wall and then sticking two fingers up at their local office suppliers, food suppliers, casual staff, painters/decorators, site maintainence contractors, St Johns Ambulance etc etc by giving them 5p in the pound for their goods. Or do you think that kind of thing should be encouraged in football? Maybe ten bonus points? Maybe a bonus point for every local business you screw over by going into admin? After all, why kick people when they're down?

Liable for what? "Basic English law" doesn't stretch to football clubs having a right to play in a particular competition. The league haven't done anything illegal.

The blackmail thing works both ways. You have to look at it from the League's point of view. They are looking at a club wanting to join (or remain involved)saying they want to particpate in the league competition but at the same time drag that league through the courts for at least the next nine months. That would put the whole competition up in the air for a season including delaying the playing of the play off matches and even the fixtures for the following season. As well as p*ssing off the other 23 clubs in the division. Which could then lead to more lawsuits. And so on. Blackmail goes both ways - its a bit like Saints signing a player who is also suing the club for an injury sustained at the hands of a Saints player the previous season, the player suggesting he won't pursue the case, but serves a writ on his first day at Staplewood.

No it isn't because this isn't, wasn't and never will be about "law". It's a members club, and they've done nothing illegal whatsover.

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.

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.

Yet more clueless, reactionary drivel from the king of it. Go and get a different hobby if all you ever want to do is see the worst in every possible situation.

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.

McCarthy seems to be making the same mistake he made when Sunderland went up - buying a load of lower league players and hoping. Think they could have a long tough old season ahead. Good luck Surman, though. Saints fan and good servant but not quite as good at dead balls as he thought he was.

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

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.

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.

I take it you still think Fialka is a multimillionaire then? Alpine in "believing the last thing he reads" shocker. Pretty sure you were slagging Pinnacle off five minutes ago.

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.

The Jewish Chronicle is weekly, so it could be out of date with the interview from a couple of days ago to go into the print edition then replicated online, but they do look like new quotes. I think its dead.

Correct. So the big win is to get a multimillion stadium with decades of life in it for a knock down price. By the way, this (a knock down stadium and potentially debt free when other clubs are spending millions on new stadiums) is the sporting advantage we are getting the sporting sanctions over (10 points). Writing off huge debts is the advantage you get from going into admin. But no one ever listens when I post that.

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?

Pinnacle's excuse is "other issues" which is a vacuum for you to fill in with whatever punishment you can make up in your own head, be it ten, twenty or whatever points. Well in my head it's "Pinnacle are full of it". It's all speculation.

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....

Becuase they didn't have the money.

Well, last post on this one - this is hindsight. Not selling to the council was the right move then, and I still think it will prove to be.

Sorry everyone is ignoring that sentence in favour of wetting themselves over the "s" in sanctions.

And me yours. Lynham had the opportunity yesterday to stick a parting shot on the league by saying "they tried to clobber us with 17 points". He didn't - he had a coy mention of "other issues" which is utterly meaningless and far more meaningless than this statement from the league which is getting torn apart. The complications seem to arise from total top of head speculation rather than anything concrete at all, so apologies if I disagree on how complicated it all is.

LOL.