um pahars

There is, as this is the ruling they have enacted to deduct us 10 points. The League have a massive amount of discretion and authority (as supported by the Arbitration Panel's ruling with regards Leeds) to ensure the integrity of their competition is upheld. We would have to prove that their decision was one that no rational decision maker in their position would make, which is simply not the case. Which is exactly what Leeds did and this was promptly rejected by the Arbitration Panel.

Probably better than your hero Poortvliet though;) Bed-wetter.

Where did you read this???

The Football League Board aren't out to screw nasty Southampton, instead they are trying to treat us as fairly as possible with reference to how they have treated other clubs in the past. I personally think the whole insolvency policy needs some serious attention, but as we stand here today the League are just trying to be fair and consistent with us and with the other teams under their watch. They have the discretion and authority in regard to their overriding responsibility to protect the integrity of the League and its competitions, in the interests of all member clubs. The Football League will doing their part to ensure we survive and honour our fixtures next season, it is not in their interests not to, but that does not mean they will have to be consistent and tough with us where it is appropriate.

Everyone knew the two companies were inextricably linked, even thicko's like me pointed out we only had one business and it was the football team that was the root cause of our financial problems. He just sent the forensic accountants in to prove what we were trying to say was poppy**** and to justify and safeguard the League's position. Indeed there is an appeal mechanism and as I have said above, then if we don't want to compromise then the League does not have to compromise either and can start us in Division 4. That said, I think an apeeal would have little if no chance anyway.

I'm sure the League will do exactly what they did with Leeds. 1. Give us the right to cease our membership of the League. 2. Offer us the chance to start in Division 4 as per their rules and we will have the right to appeal the points deduction. 3. Offer us the chance to start in Division 3, but accept the point deduction and forego any appeal. As with Leeds, the League will compromise and allow us to stay in Division 3, but only if we compromise and drop our right of appeal.

Evn with their rules and laws the League still have a huge amount of leeway and discretion on all matters pertaining to their own League. The Arbitration Panel in the Leeds case backed this up and one snippet gives an indication that the League has every right to use its discretion: 64. Given the absolute discretion afforded to the Board in this respect by the Memorandum, Articles of Association and the Insolvency Policy and having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to a sport’s governing body, the Claimant 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. The last part here (along with other bits throughout the ruling by the Arbitration Panel) makes it clear that the League can use its discretion to make decisions that they see are in the best interests of the League and the concept of fair play etc etc etc. With precedents like this, the support of the Board and the support of the member clubs, then it would be a pretty big task to prove that the League has not made a rational decision by considering substance over form in our case. It's not just a black and white legal case, there is a huge grey area within which the League has quite a bit of power, support and discretion to make rulings that are in the wider interests of the game.

The League have a huge amount of leeway and discretion on all matters pertaining to their own League. The Arbitration Panel in the Leeds case backed this up and one snippet gives an indication that the League has every right to use its discretion: 64. Given the absolute discretion afforded to the Board in this respect by the Memorandum, Articles of Association and the Insolvency Policy and having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to a sport’s governing body, the Claimant 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.

Read these (particularly the full Arbitration Panel's Findings) and you will see that they support the League's position in that the League has quite a bit of discretion when dealing with matters such as these. http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4b/ec/0,,10794~126027,00.pdf http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4c/ec/0,,10794~126028,00.pdf http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/78/3/0,,10794~888,00.pdf http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/dc/ed/0,,10794~126428,00.pdf

I think the compromise will be exactly what the League did with Leeds. The League could well have made Leeds start in League 2 (Div 4), but compromised by allowin them to stay in League 1 (Div 3) on the proviso that they accepted the -15 and signed to a compromise agreement effectivley asking them to accept it and forego any future action against the League. It may well be that the clause that Pinnacle are being asked to sign is something along the same lines. I also think that our starting position hasn't been fully clarified as there is still the potential of further points deductions. I think Pinnacle will want to have a definite agreed start point with the League before they hand over the cash as any subsequent points deductions could well affect the prospects of the Club and therefore materially affect the value of the Club.

I would probably agree and IMHO I think the sticking point is that the League have not made it clear what the final outcome will be. As I said elsewhere I think Pinnacle would want to know exactly where the Club will be starting next season before they hand over the cash i.e. what division and with what points deduction.

The rationale behind this structure (put in place in 1996 and way before the League's Insolvency Procedure was even dreamt of) was to circumvent the FA's Rule 34 (regarding financially exploiting football clubs).

Indeed they are, but when you get to a case of administration, then the p's in the £'s are much smaller. I'm sorry but suggesting there is no material difference to the creditors between going in & coming out of administration and a renegotiated position on debt is somewhat stretching things. To get the vast majority of your debt wiped off will normally only occur in drastic circumstances.

And maybe you would, but I doubt your reply would also include,"and by the way rather than the full £240,000 you owe me, let's just call the debt £80,000 and you only have to pay that back". There is a massive difference between renegotiting payment terms and amounts and wiping 2/3rds of the debt off. The Club does not trade in the manner you are suggesting, i.e. at arms length witht the stadium being it's own insular company. The FL called in the forensic accountants to ascertain the financial inter dependibility of the SFC Ltd and SFC PLC (not the manner in which they traded with each other), something that soon became obvious.

Wiping millions off of your debt and renegotiating the rate on the other debt will not have the same net effect, even over time. Wiping the millions off will be much more beneficial in the short and long term. I'm sorry but your analysis of how SFC PLC and SFC Ltd trade is just way off the mark. The wholly owned companies under the umbrella of the PLC do not rade at arms length as you suggest.

Will have to pop out in a minute to pick one up. What's the main thrust????? Are Jackson and Green in amongst all this????

I think a number of reasons (and I'm sure there are more than i can think of): 1. Maybe Pinnacle probably think it's worth a punt in giving the League a scare, even if it doesn't come off. A fair strategy as long as too much time and resources isn't wasted. Puff your chest out, try and front up the League and give it a go. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. 2. Maybe the League haven't made their position clear, i.e. is it (a) -10 in Div 3, (b) -25 in Div 3, © -10 in Div 4, (d) -25 in Div 4 etc etc etc and so the wranglings from that side have only just been started to be played out. I would certainly want the League to be explicit about what the starting point will be before I signed the cheque. 3. You could go to 10 different lawyers and get ten different interpretations and summations. It's also in a lawyers interest to suggest giving legal action a go. I certainly don't think Pinnacle are naive, and scenarios 1. and 2. wouldn't suggest that at all.

Maybe they've given us the same three options: 1. Cease to be members (i.e. withdraw from the League). 2. Start in Div 4 (as per Rule 11) 3. Stay in Div 3, but accept the points deduction and we've not agreed to any and so they are going back to agree on next step. I personally think there's a game of brinkmanship going on (and I can't blame Pinnacle for trying it on), it's just that I very much doubt the League will concede on this issue. They hold all the aces (i.e. we have to make them let us into their game), there are a number of recent precedents (all the rulings from the Leeds case make this clear, including the support of an Independent Arbitration Panel) and as the voting showed with the Leeds case, they probably have the support of the majority of their member. IMHO they won't be backing down.

Exactly what Leeds did, and the Arbitration Panel bombed Leeds out.

Anyone care to shed anylight (or offer up their views) on what he means by this??? "Despite continual outside interference with our bid we're committed to completing a deal as we feel it's in the best long-term interests of Southampton football club, which is obviously what I care about." The Football League?? The FA?? The Administrators?? The Creditors?? Rival consortiums?? A N Others??

But of course you have to recognise that there is a pre-existing agreement to submit any disputes to to arbitration (FA Rule K).

You could well be right and additionally it could even be with regards what division we are playing in as in the Leeds case right up until 3rd August the League looked as though they were even considering letting them start again in Div 4. Pinnacle and anyone else will want to have the League's position confirmed and signed off before they pay over the money. Some of the starting points with regards a comparison with Leeds are different, but the way it has panned out has many, many similarities.

Roughly where I am, in that the FL hold all the aces. Two points though. Firstly, won't SFC PLC still need a CVA even if they are being liquidated???? And secondly, and perhaps more important, if you look at the Leeds ruling then the arbitration panel did not deem Leeds having to sign away their future rights of redress and appeal as being illegal/under duress/unenforceable. They clearly stated that it was a commercial bargain taken by Leeds after being given a number of alternatives, no matter how unpalateable some were (cease membership of the League, start in Div 4, start in Div 3 with -15) and therefore therefore the compromise agreement was deemed to exist and the Arbitration Panel found for the League immediately.

We cannot take the league to court, as we are bound by Rule K (arbitration) of the FA rules & regs.

And in addition to the Leeds ruling i put up somehwere on this site, i think the following is a good read and helps flesh out what the League can and cannot do (particularly with reference an appeal). 12.3 Sporting sanctions and grounds for appeal don't make good reading for us as neither of the Force Majeure events would appear to have been met with regards us: http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/78/3/0,,10794~888,00.pdf