saintjay77

So on your say so the 7 days was clear right from the beginning? Maybe you should give Fry a ring and see if he can offer you a job because he went away to prepare a case for appeal that any new owners can take up. Had you been there at the time he may not have needed to bother The league didnt back track because fry didnt prepare a case. Because he clearly stated he was preparing a case on the OS so that new owners could move forward with it if they so wished. And if I was running the league there wouldnt need to be anything drawn out in court because I would give a club that has a grievence there appeal. Take on any new information they may have and along with the others running the league take a vote in a fair and democratic way. Not think "oh balls they might have a case so lets say something else so they cant come back on us!" Have the appeal, admit that these circumstances dont fit in with the rule book, decide that while SFC is not in admin it is the cause for SLH being in admin so therefor have the -10 anyway and be done with it. This could have been done without anyone losing face and all the other clubs in the leagues wouldnt have had grounds to try and re-open there cases. Anyway I agree with one thing you said. its probably best to drop it cause none of it matters to us anyway. whats important is that someone takes over and we can look forward to watching some games again.

so if it was known on the same day we got the points why did the administrators just prepare an apeal for anyone who took over? bare in mind at the time they had no idea who would be the new owners and we still had a 21 day exclusivity period to wait? thats a fair bit past the 7 days is it not? personally i think the administrators missed the print on the 7 days and as such messed up. but malwhiney was asked directly on ssn if new owners woud be able to apeal and he clearly said they would. seeing as he now says we cant and convieniently brings up the 7 days that says to me they back tracked. im not saying the 7 days dont exist but the FL didnt make it clear on SSN and the administrators missed it in the rule book. anyway im going back to bed lol

we didnt find out about the 7 days bit till recently. Malwhiney answered a question that he was asked in reference to any appeal and he said that we would be able to apeal. Even administrators said they prepared things so that any future owners would be able to take up that apeal so either someone messed up or the FL changed its stance. The FL have backtracked on what they have said a few times. That doesnt make us in the right or show Pinnacle are any good. but it shows the FL are willing to bend there own rules to suit the mood they are in when they get out of bed everyday.

I dont see how they have been disproved to be honest. Sure plenty of people have differing opinions but the FL statement can be read 2 different ways so it looks like there is some room for the FL to change direction when ever it wants. I posted this earlier "The statements that the FL have said have had most of us urguing on what they could mean so its funny that Pinnacle now all of a sudden see the quotes as proof there will be no further sanctions. Unless they are now expecting the league to deny there statement suggests there will be no follow on punnishments? It could be that Pinnacle are trying to be clever. Take a 50/50 statement by the FL State it means no further punnishments 100% If the league dont deny it and then hit us with further points at a later date then the league will look like the bad guys. If the league come out and say there statement does not eliminate the possability of further punnishment then Pinnacle are the ones looking like they were right to walk away money or not." The argument on Pinnacle having money or not is 1 thing but that doesnt mean that the FL have cleared things up with a nice simple statement. Some people like to jump on alpine because he is just as quick to jump on them. I think some of his points in this thread do make some sence but neither he or I or anyone other than the FL can be sure if they are right or wrong. nothing wrong with considering it though,

Fit and proper persons bit was done ages ago when they submitted the preposed new board

Your stance is the same as the FL as in SLH "is" SFC so for one to be OK they both have to be OK. But thats done based on the bending of FL rules. By the legal System the Holding Company owns several company's including SFC, SMS, Training ground, jacksons farm and what ever else. It also used to own an Insurance company and a radio station and possibly a few other minor divisions. I agree with you that we are trying to work the system to benifit us but thats what any business of everyday person will or at least should be doing. The FL is also trying to do the same from its own stand point. Its all B**ocks really but thats the system that we live in. But given the FL rules are not following in line with the Legal system I can understand where the perspective buyers are basing there argument. Morally and black and white terms Any club going into admin should maybe get a - 10 point hit and be done with it. No arguments and no fecking around. But by the letter of the law SFC is not SLH and SFC's debts are not the Stadiums debts or anyone else's and visa versa. If I was the man with the money I would trying to get what ever I could too. FFS these people dont make there money by rolling over to the demands of everyone else all the time do they? I cant see either side truly giving up its ground though and the FL obviously hold all the aces as being a members club its rules can be what ever they want them to be and the Legal system doesnt really come into it. What worries me is the longer things go on and the more players that get sold the less the club will be worth. If it was valued at 15 mil and its just sold 2.5 mil worth of its assets then is it now worth 12.5 mil?

Wernt they just waiting for clarifcation on the money? Not the same as saying they couldnt state where it was coming from but either way thats the point Pinnacle seemed to do a runner so 2 + 2 = ? The statements that the FL have said have had most of us urguing on what they could mean so its funny that Pinnacle now all of a sudden see the quotes as proof there will be no further sanctions. Unless they are now expecting the league to deny there statement suggests there will be no follow on punnishments? It could be that Pinnacle are trying to be clever. Take a 50/50 statement by the FL State it means no further punnishments 100% If the league dont deny it and then hit us with further points at a later date then the league will look like the bad guys. If the league come out and say there statement does not eliminate the possability of further punnishment then Pinnacle are the ones looking like they were right to walk away money or not. just guessing though ????

He went quiet after my point too lol

Well that buggers our 1st team up let alone the bench!

but before those extra players that are not getting a game now were not getting a game before. only with a space on the bench they now have the chance to get 10 to 15 mins experience under there belt. How is that a bad thing? Are there squads that only have the 1st 11 plus 5 subs that will now have to go out and buy a couple more players to fill the bench?

I think thats where all the arguments have come from though. If SFC is bought for 15mil then 100% of its debts will be paid so there should be no further sanctions. If the FL stick with the line of SLH being SFC then even if 100% of SFC's debts are paid off we are still at risk of further sanctions until someone buys the SMS company and the other companies while paying 75% or more of there debt. So legally it would be a kick in the teeth if SFC's debts are gone but your still hammered for other parts of the business you buy SFC from. Say 1 person buys SMS and another buys SFC? the person buying SFC pays top whack and the other gets SMS at a cut down price below the 75% Should SFC still get further sanctions then?

I think we have had plenty of players playing for the reserves one night and then on the bench the next day for the 1st team. Odds on they will only get 15 mins or so at the end so it shouldnt be too difficult for them.

Who else can we expect to lose though? Will we be paying Thomas CCC wages to sit in the treatment room all season again? Will BWP and Mule still be there? Gillet could still attract a fee so could be another to be off. Saga and Ras are still on the books but I dont think we honestly think they will still be here. Ive not seen the printed list but I wonder how many of the names on it will realistically be with us?

How can it mean more players arnt getting a game? You can still only bring on 3 subs and by having more on the bench you can bring in a few of the (ehem) youth and if the game has gone well for us, give them 10 mins at the end to build up a little experience in the league.

Ive been saying about this for a while. I got the idea that the takeover (if it ever happenes) will take so long that we will lose players as they have to sort there future out and we will sell some to get some cash in, leaving us with barer bones than last season. no doubt if it all goes on for another 2 weeks we will lose more players and get to the point where it will be a struggle to put out a team with more than a couple of professional games between them. It doesnt look good for next season at all IMO.

Quick point FC. SFC company is the football club which is what the perspective bidders have been interested in and the only thing we have had any info on so far. SMS is a seperate company owned by SLH and therfor would need to be purchaced seperatly. SFC's debts/bills are rental of the stadium, ongoing Transfer payments to other clubs and the Overdraft. (im sure there will be more but i am being simplistic) SMS's debts/bills will be the Mortage with AVIVA, Utility bills and staffing. So if someone bought SFC they could still rent SMS from either Aviva, SLH or a new owner. It would make sence for who ever buys SFC to also buy SMS and training ground and so on but the way things are set up they dont have too. So if SFC is bought and its debts are cleared but SMS is not bought and the mortage is not satisfied then there will be no CVA for SLH and therefor leave us open to the possability of further punishment IMO.

Are you really expecting there to be a bid by Friday? Are you ITK? We have seen so many dealines and targets that come to nothing I have got to the point where I dont expect anything so if Fry says he will meet to discuss options if there are no bids forthcoming, the only factual bit in there is the fact he will meet with directors on friday. He cant be sure if there will be a bid or not and neither can we. I will be plesently suprised if there is a bid though and even more suprised if it goes to completion.

No Friday MF will go back to the directors and give them the options. 1 of the options could be that we have enough in the bank due to sales to keep us going another month and we still have interested parties so carry on as normal. This could go on forever!

Wotte he is not in Egypt yet? :shock:

What is not clear though is if he meant an extra 5 or extra 15. Just the 5 and the 5 year plan is still achievable IMO but the extra 15 puts us at serious risk of another relegation or much higher spending on players that can make those extra points up. So if its an extra 15 then that seriously changes the ability to make money on the investment so anyone wishing to spend 15 mill is well within there rights to have a second thought or 2.

im with you on that one. Anything that he comes out and says now will get shot to pieces by the few who think they have all the answers. I wouldnt bother coming back just for some abuse. He may have had the best intentions but when it comes down to it he will have a mob after him for getting no-where fast. best to stay clear IMO

At the end of the day how you or I interprate the little information available to us matters not. If the argument is down to purly an extra points thing then i can understand it and if I was in a position to buy the club I would also argue it. If its just down to Pinnacle and co wanting a way out as there funds have vanished then I can also understand that. I wasnt impressed by the Fialka interview and I think thats when it all went to peices for them. Shame that didnt happen before the 21 days as someone more serious (if that person exists) would have had longer to get a deal completed. Hopefully we will still have a club when Milwall turn up for a kick about.

To be fair Alps has stated a few times he thinks the Pinnacle bid is full of .... but it doesnt mean the FL are squeeky clean. Dont think him being on ignore will be too damaging either lol

But if SFC is sold as a seperate company then its not "inextricably linked". The legal teams all seem to think they have a case to prove as such also but cant because the League dont want an appeal to happen. The discussions between the perspective buyers and the Administrators will be to discuss the ability to satisfy the creditors. The league has nothing to do with that as it just wants to know that the Creditors have been satisfied. And if they havent then the CVA is not granted and there are further points deductions. But if SFC is a seperate company that legaly is not in admin and proven to not be "inextricably linked" to SLH then the league have no way of getting the CVA for SFC. Its a legal mess that has been created rashly IMO. Fair enough that the league should punish us. And I think fair enough we should get -10 points. But the league needed to amend there rules to fit in with a situation like ours. Its not like we set things up to beat the system as we set things up like this 6 years before the rules were made. And at the time SLH had many companies with SFC being the biggest. I bet at the time there would have been no way they would have been "inextricably linked". its only since all the other companies have been sold off and folded that we are left with SFC being pretty much SLH's sole company and one in the same apart from the name.

I too question how much money was really available but for arguments sake lets say Pinnacle had the funds to complete the deal, they accept there will be -10 points, but the contract leaves things wide open for further points deductions. I dont think its unfair for Pinnacle or whoever might get to that stage to want the contract to state that will be all and there will be no further deductions. SFC which is the company that is being bought is not legally in Admin so legally Pinnacle cant get a CVA. The league know that and as they bent the rules to give the -10 there should be no reson why they cant bend the rules to say there will be no more. Personally I dont think pinnacle had it in them to complete but the same issues will be there for anyone else that wants to buy. And unless the League are prepared to state there will be no further issues with points deductions I cant see why anyone would stump up 15 mill on SFC.