um pahars

We did this a while back, but didn't have any consensus at all. My view was that a piecemeal firesale would not achieve much, whilst others (and I think Guided Missile was more bullish) thought we could raise a decent sum. My stance was that nothing would clear its true value in a desperate firesale. And then with regards assets: Staplewood and Jackson's Farm won't get much in the current market with no planning permission and with some restrictions. Players etc, minimal given our failure to pay them means they can start to walk away if they so choose. St Mary's, land not worth that much (a few million, maybe less in current climes) and there definitly is not a market for an intact second hand football ground. I have no idea what the cut off point is, although I'm sure Fry, Aviva & Barclay's have got their numbers, but I don't think emotion will come into making such a decision if the offers are too low.

I too don't think it's a hoax, instead a combination of wishful thinking, people not wanting to lose face and most of all people shtting themselves when confronted with the real task at hand with regards ££££'s and melting away to be replaced by the reserves (or even the youth team)!!! From day one I have been really concerned that our financial position combined with such a dire recession will mean we will be really up against it with regards finding a buyer. The current impasse with wages going unpaid and the Club about to unravel may be the start of something very bad!!!!!!

You would have been better off sending a PM, rather than cluttering this board up with a post about 2 or 3 people. Additionally, I don't remember any "Questions for washsaint" threads when your lauded return of Lowe and the Poortvliet went t1ts up and put us where we are now. And lastly, this was what you were trumpeting out last August when you were championing Lowe and Poortvliet: So Mr Hypocritical, is it only "what's done is done" when it suits you:rolleyes:

I tend to agree. My only concern is that the League's position might be they'll only compromise at -10+ to -30 (throwing the CVA hit in as well)!!!!!! I also wonder what the member club's views would be if they were asked tgo vote on us only taking a -10 hit??? But the best we can hope from the League is for them to agree at -10, so if they're offering us that then we should be signing on the dotted line. On a couple of other points, the League are not doing anything illegal here, so some postings on this subject are irrelevant. Additionally, the idea that we could sign and then claim duress at a later stage has already been shown with the Leeds precedent to be a non starter.

Spot on. They've given us another month at the very least and considering I don't see many other White Knights riding oer the horizon, then I'm more than happy for them to be doing their best.

I agree. As with a number of clubs coming out of administration (or not) there has always been dialogue, negotiation and hopefully compromise. Pinnacle have every right to try and get the best deal possible for us and for them, and whilst I also doubt they'll get it overturned I have no problem with them giving it a go and also trying to ensure our position is clear going forward. My faith is also kept going not least because they've spent a sizeable sum so far!!!!

I think technically you're probably right, in that there will be no NewCo just a transfer of ownership, but Ithink the League will look behind that. I also don't think the League are being vindictive here as they will want us in the League. They just have to be seen to be fair to the other clubs in the League (particularly those that have had points deducted previously).

Loads of differences, but also loads of similarities but it also shows the intent of the League to pursue what they believe is in the best interest of the Leauge as a whole. It also shows the League can use their discretion and authority to rule on these matters and that their conduct was supported by an Independent Arbitration Panel. Of course each case is different, but my money would be on a similar outcome as per Leeds (and others) where the League's view won the day. I'm certainly no expert on this, but if you step back and look at it rationally and objectively, along wiith reading stuf from these links, then you start to get a feel for where I'm coming from. http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/dc/ed/0,,10794~126428,00.pdf http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4c/ec/0,,10794~126028,00.pdf http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4b/ec/0,,10794~126027,00.pdf http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/78/3/0,,10794~888,00.pdf

Nope, judicial reviews are for public bodies.

I agree that that part of the comparison looks different in that Fry and Pinnacle will try and say no NewCo is being established, it is merely a transfer of ownership. But as the League ruled with regards applying their Insolvency Policy to SFC Ltd (when it was not in administration), they are prepared to use their authority and discretion and look at substance over form. And if you look at the whole of the League ruling with regards Leeds, the Arbitration Panel at the time were supportive of the League using its discretion and authority to pursue their (and their members) stated aims.

We have got a right of appeal and at the same time the League have a right to start us in Div 4. They will compromise and allow us to start in Div 3 if we compromise and forego an appeal.

So what they are doing to us is exactly what they have done to Leeds and others. We're not being unfairly picked on and the League are being consistent. I presume their motive is not to have appeals hanging over the football season.

They certainly said it to Leeds, so maybe it is a line they say to all of these clubs and maybe they have all just taken it on the chin. If you look at the Leeds case, then the League certainly showed some discretion in allowing Leeds to stay in Division 1 (how much of a compromise that is is a matter of judgement).

I would agree that on the face of it, it would appear that SFC Ltd is not going under and a NewCo being formed, instead it's just a "transfer of ownership", but once again given past precendents I believe the League would have no problem in stating substance over form, and using their discretion and authority to rule in a similar manner.

I wouldn't rule that out as what was clear from the Leeds affair was that Leeds could well have had to start in League 2 (Division 4) if the League not used their discretion and compromised. I reckon the League are saying you're in League 2 unless you want to meet us halfway!!!!

The League are probably doing exactly the same as they did with Leeds and offering us two options: 1. Withdraw from the League, or 2. Take up our position in Division 4 as per Regulation 11 And then the League's compromise is allowing us to stay in Division 3 as opposed to starting in Division 4, as long as we compromise and accept the points deduction and forego our right of appeal. The League will be happy to compromise, as long as we meet them halfway and a line can be drawn under this sorry saga. The Arbitration Panel highlighted the League's compromise: A consortium of businessmen (including Mr Ken Bates) wanted to acquire the assets of the Club and made an offer to the Administrators which was accepted. Regulation 11 requires a new Member (‘Leeds NewCo’) to start the following season in a lower league (L2). Leeds NewCo wanted to stay in L1. The League’s Board was receptive to the idea but on condition of a deduction of 15 points in the following season. Leeds NewCo agreed to this condition. (paras 4-21) The Arbitration Panel were also clear that the League had the discretion and authority to act (and our position not materially different from the Leeds episode): “by virtue of Article 41, Article 4 and Article 6 the Board had all the requisite authority to exercise its powers and discretion to impose a Condition of a 15 point deduction.” The Panel therefore held that:- “the assertion that the Board lacked the power to impose the Condition is unsustainable.” The Panel also rejected as “unsustainable” Leeds’ allegation that the decision was unfair and/or unreasonable. It held that Leeds United: - “would have failed to establish that the Board’s decision (or the League’s) to include the points Condition was a decision that no rational decision maker in their position could make.” “As to the amount of points deducted it carefully carried out a balancing exercise between 0 to 20 and arrived at a decision that, in all the circumstances of this particular case (which we do not need to recite) was well within the range of decision reasonably open to it to make.” And hopefully for the last time, the only redress we have is via arbitration, due to the FA's Rule K. Additionally, the Arbitration Panel have already set a precedent by clearly stating that the waiver Leeds signed was enforceable.

The League are probably doing exactly the same as they did with Leeds and offering us two options: 1. Withdraw from the League, or 2. Take up our position in Division 4 as per Regulation 11 And then the League's compromise is allowing us to stay in Division 3 as opposed to starting in Division 4, as long as we compromise and accept the points deduction and forego our right of appeal. The League will be happy to compromise, as long as we meet them halfway and a line can be drawn under this sorry saga. The Arbitration Panel highlighted the League's compromise: A consortium of businessmen (including Mr Ken Bates) wanted to acquire the assets of the Club and made an offer to the Administrators which was accepted. Regulation 11 requires a new Member (‘Leeds NewCo’) to start the following season in a lower league (L2). Leeds NewCo wanted to stay in L1. The League’s Board was receptive to the idea but on condition of a deduction of 15 points in the following season. Leeds NewCo agreed to this condition. (paras 4-21)

They did exactly the same with Leeds and the Independent Arbitration Panel found in favour of the League.

We cannot take the League to court!!!!!! We are bound by the pre existing arrangement with the FA (Rule K Arbitration) that disputes must be settled by arbitration. Additionally we can't just sign up and then say we changed our minds: As the Panel said, “to ensure Leeds stayed in League 1, [Leeds] was prepared to pay a price to achieve this”. As the Arbitration Panel stressed, ‘[t]his was a commercial bargain, at arms length between a powerful and rich Consortium of businessmen and a responsible professional Sports Governing Body’. The Panel overwhelmingly concluded that Leeds United should be required to abide by the bargain that it struck with the League’s Board, including its waiver of any claims beyond the appeal to member clubs, and the arbitration claims were rejected on this basis. As the Panel said: - “We are satisfied that the Claimants’ case begins and ends with the Compromise Agreement which clearly embodied the intention of both parties. Taking the Agreement as a whole and in particular Clause 4 Leeds New Co agreed to the imposition of the 15 points and to release the League from the claims which have now been advanced and to waive any rights to do so. Leeds New Co specifically covenanted not to bring the claims it has now sought to assert and there is no basis to allow it not to honour that covenant.”

I was also surprised when I read that the League had that option and that it was one of the options they put to Leeds (along with withdrawing from the League and also accepting the points deduction and staying in Div 3). However, I think the League sought to compromise and keep the clubs in their respective divisions as long as they accept the points deductions. This came from the League when they explained the Arbitration Panel's decision which backed the League's stance: In particular, the League not only accepted Leeds United New Co into membership, but allowed it to take its predecessor’s place in League 1, subject to a 15 point deduction to reflect the lack of a CVA. It has been suggested that this 3rd August Agreement was signed under duress, that Leeds United had no option but to do so or face losing the Club forever. In fact, as the judgment reflects, the Agreement as signed represented the culmination of a series of discussions and a meeting between representatives of Leeds United and The Football League, in which various options had been discussed to address the failure to secure a CVA of the creditors of Leeds Old Co, including: - • Cessation of membership; • Commencing the following Season in League 2 under Regulation 11; and • The 15 point deduction to apply in League 1. It was Leeds United who chose the option of a points deduction in League 1 rather than commencing the following season in League 2. As the Panel said, “to ensure Leeds stayed in League 1, [Leeds] was prepared to pay a price to achieve this”.

I don't think anyone came out wth anything as concrete as saying the Club had been assured and even if they did, then quite frankly I think it was the last desperate acts of a desperate regime!!!

think you'll find he manager he was alluding to in The Pink was Peter Reid!!!!

I think the problem might be that Pinnacle want to know exactly what our start position will be i.e. -10 or up to -30, as this would certainly impact on the price you would pay.

The problem is that we are subject to a valid pre-existing agreement to submit any disputes between clubs and the League to arbitration as per FA Rule K arbitration. Leeds attempted to go to the High Court, but quickly backtracked and withdrew.

LOL:D Pearson's certainly not my hero (Keegan would get my legs all wobbly though), just find Moanji's continued ramblings rather amusing, particularly when put up against his support of the god awful Poortvliet. I too hope it can all be sorted out in a couple of days and as much as I would welcome Pearson back, I just don't think it would happen as he's on a bit of a roll at Leicester.