CB Fry

After seven days, wasn't it?

Excellent post, which will be ignored by the lunatics screaming about "human rights" and "the FL are breaking the law!!!!!!" and other such garbage that is being churned out day in day out on here. And anyone saying the non appeal ruling is a "last minute spanner in the works" is utterly deluded. It was plain as day to anyone eighty days ago when this all started.

Says who? As several dull people have said to me in recent days - are you a qualified lawyer with access to the full details of the blah blah etc etc etc

Jimmy Tarbuck would play himself.

I was Saints lawyer I wouldn't make any money by dragging everything out over every single sentence, but that doesn't make me wrong. We won't get the 10 points recinded and if we ever do "appeal" to the FL, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the high court, Watchdog, the European Union, Norwich Union, the Pope or Lynne Foulds Wood we will never, ever, win. All of you can come and poo on my head if I'm wrong.

Pinnacle are still the best bid because they've got further than anyone else, and that idiot Jackson isn't involved in it. If MLT wasn't involved Pinnacle would have been ripped apart by the good people on here (including me) and this forum would be even more of a sh*tstorm than it is now.

Absolutely. Agree with this too. And agree with this - the fact that MLT is on board is the reason to keep believing. Yesterday I had serious doubts - the ten points thing is just dragging on far too long and stinks of red herring - but todays commitment to pay the staff makes me feel much better. I think it probably will happen.

Great post, agree with all of it, except the bit about the FL losing in the high court. They wouldn't lose, the FL would win 100 appeals out of 100. But of course it wouldn't ever get to high court, not within about three years anyway. By which time the 10 points will be a complete irrelevence to the SFC of 2012. Anyway, the rest of your post is fab.

There's only one demented frother on this forum love, and it aint me you swivel eyed div. Read your first post again and tell me where the non subjective bits are

a) We haven't been jerked around by anyone. The previous board jerked around (to say the least) and landed us where we are now, with a perfectly fair 10 point penalty. b) The prospective new owners are making a bit too much of a song and dance about the ten point thing and the right to appeal. We don't need to appeal, the punishment is perfectly fair. c) Not sure what the Premier League owes Setanta - Setanta have been taking £10 a month off 1.2m punters on the strength of broadcasting valuable assets they now can't pay for having had several extensions from the PL and SPL. Sentantas mismanagement could see several Blue Square and SPL clubs go into administration. All a bit of a mixed up rant about nothing there, Alpine.

Why do people still think the FA run the Premier League? Christ, that hasn't been the case for well over a decade - in fact, I don't think they ever ran it - the "FA Premier League" title was just a fig leaf and an ego boost for the FA. They've never run the Prem.

Yeah, fair enough. None of that means we shouldn't be deducted ten points though. It's a difficult one for anyone to put a lid on, and being the FL are being slaughtered on here for issuing and sticking to a perfectly reasonable punishment no-one is ever going to thank them because fans will moan like hell whatever.

Have a look at some of Um Pahars contributions on various threads tonight. Chances are the League have opened their negotiations by starting us off in League 2 instead with the compromise being L1 minus ten, as they did with Leeds.

I think this kind of thing needs to be permanently at the top of the forum. Getting a bit sick of people screaming IT'S ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!! when what is happening is clearly a bit of brinkmanship/negotiation between two parties, ultimately leading to a compromise agreement. About as "illegal" as winding up a business in order to shake off debts you can't afford to pay and then starting again a few weeks later. Maybe we need to start a brand new sub forum on Human Rights and Common Law now we have so much interest in it. I'll get on the phone to Shami Chakrabati to officially open it if the mods will do the honours.

Which puts the tin hat on any talk of "natural justice" on either side firmly in the bin, then. Good, that was the point I was making. The news that Pinnacle are paying the wages on Thursday is excellent.

Actually, I think we are in agreement (call it a compromise ). Even if we sign this piece of paper, we can, in reality, in law appeal if we want to. Course we can. That's why I don't get the hand wringing and "oh its a scandal" stuff we've seen on here all day.

Eh? So just to confirm any club can run up any debts they like, plead poverty and start again. Surely the whole point of the 10 point rule is to stop clubs running up debt they can't manage? But you can't have rules without some sanctions. Come on. Normally sensible people on this forum (yes, you ) have gone quite mad.

Look, I don't give a monkey's about Aviva. But "they decided to do so and so" defence is also applicable to our dopey decision to go into administration and not expect a 10 point deduction. Southampton Football Club haven't been wronged, either. Swallow it.

Not sure I have ever said the league is allowed to do anything illegal. Reasonable conditions of entry is not the same as employees of a casino beating people up. Christ, I'm ****ing in the wind today.

You don't get that we do not have a case. The FL just want us to shut us up so they can get on with running a football competition. The FL would walk through one appeal, two appeals, ten appeals. Take it to the f*cking pope. We would never win, we have no case whatsoever.

But your point about employers offering less etc etc makes my point for me. An employer forcing an employee to sign a compromise agreement for less than statutory redundancy is illegal and unreasonable. So obviously illegal and wouldn't stand up in court. What the league are asking us to do is not unreasonable and definitely not illegal. It will be a compromise agreement. And of course if you did have a compromise agreement you were happy with, it wouldn't stop you from going to court if you changed your mind. But you would probably lose. Which is what Leeds did. Southampton Football Club (lets call it Guantanamo FC because its diddums human rights have been so terribly violated) could do the same and would also lose. The league I am sure will put "your statutory rights will not be affected" on the contract, just like you get on crisp packets.

Sorry, it isn't. This is a sporting league run as a members club. Not the Khmer Rouge. And you'll notice I didn't mention the 10 points on my post. The league have given us reasonable condition of entry to the league.

What?? What do you think Pinnacle have been doing for the past two months if you think they haven't done a deal to take on the stadium debt? They obviously have done a deal with Aviva, but it won't be for Aviva's benefit, will it.

But actually, it isn't. "Join our league on these conditions, which relate to rules your predecessor broke, or don't join our league". Not an incredibe abuse of power in anyone's language. If TL and co can find us a better league to play in, then he should go right ahead and fill his boots. In other news, Saints playing debt-free in a £30m stadium we paid £10m for in the end is an "incredible abuse of power" against a creditor backed into a position of chosing between not many (rubbish) options including sitting on a worthless empty second hand football stadium.

My response to the above is the excellent point below. We'll be debt free with a £30m stadium we paid about £10m for at the end of this when it comes. Where's the natural justice for our creditors, then?