um pahars

When you consider that the League could even try and get us to start in Division 4 (as they did with Leeds), then taking the 10 point hit, staying in Div 3 and signing away your right to appeal actually sunds quite promising. Of course the argument could be that we're not Saints NewCo, but I think once again that would take some serious smoke and mirrors. This was taken from the Arbitration Panel's findings with regards Leeds: 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 (and this is why they waived their right of appeal).

Maybe the League are doing exactly what they did with Leeds, in that they have told Pinnacle that Saints NewCo will have to start in League 2 (i.e. Dvision 4) in line with their Regulations. But of course they can use their discretion and keep us in League 1 as long as we accept the penalty and sign away our right to appeal on the points deduction.

I suugest that people would do well to read through the League's position regarding the "Leeds" situation as it is quite eye opening on a number of levels and answers a few questions (including why going to the High Court in a normal way is not an option to us). http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/dc/ed/0,,10794~126428,00.pdf

I'm sorry but they are two totally different scenarios that have little in common. To suggest otherwise is really stretching things here.

£££££££'s plus you're not seriously comparing a multilateral agreement that both sides are in agreement agree with, with a unilateral one where the creditors are looking to salvage whatever they can from the wreckage are you???

But that will not be the case with us. There is no way in the world that Pinnacle (or anyone else for that matter) will be paying off all our creditors in full. If we come out of administration then we will have ahd a significant amount of debt/liabilities wiped off. Since the rules have been introduced, all clubs have been penalised. And if we're talking about fair, then there is no fairness about escaping a points deduction that many clubs have suffered just because we have a holding company. the Football Club will benefit from coming out of administration and that is unfair on our competitors.

As I was saying to Exit2 earlier tonight, I think many of the League's rules probably come the late 19th Century!!!! Things have moved on at a spectacular rate in recent decades/years and I think it's fair to say that the administrators of the game have struggled to adapt to this pace of change. I'm certainly not making excuses for inefficient and sht run organisations, but the fact is that as a football club we will benefit if we comeo out the other side of administration and therefore we deserve the same punishment that has been handed out to a number of clubs before us.

He certainly mentioned it the second round of interviews on the subject (it was not in the first statement). Why are they now playing hardball and potentially denying our right to appeal??? Because they can???

I think it's because: (a) the league want to be seen to be fair and consistent, and arguably our PLC smoke and mirrors is not fair considering what so many clubs have had to go through, and (b) they don't want to get dragged into courts and have legal cases springing up all over the place and legal battles replacing those on the pitch.

I don't have a problem with Pinnacle trying it on. After all it's definitely worth giving the League a fright and seeing if there's any chance of gaining 10 points before the season starts, but we have to face up to the fact that we are very, very, very unlikely to get the League to back track. They have all the power given it is up to them to transfer the Golden Share to us. Try it on by all means, but I would be very surprised, if not worried if this -10 is a deal breaker!!!!

That's exactly what Leeds said, and the League still told Leeds to f** Off. The League's decision stood. Here's Leeds taking their duress case to court (and eventually an Arbitration Panel) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-514478/Leeds-appeal-15-point-penalty-court.html And here's a report dismissing Leeds claim. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/01/leedsunited.leagueonefootball1 Here's some more info from the League that throws light on the whole process. http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/dc/ed/0,,10794~126428,00.pdf

Leeds signed away that right, even if they claimed it was under duress. This is no "normal" legal battle. GM's Stoneham Golf Club analogy is rather simplified, but the context is closer to the truth than many on here seem to think.

LOL. when I first read it, I read it as shtty and therefore thought you were contradicting yourself and couldn't understand your point. But your premise with getting a swnky stadium on the cheap is spot on as there is no doubt that even if technically the Club has not gone into administratin, the football club will have benefitted by getting alot of debt knocked off. Therefore I don't see why the member clubs would vote to treat us any differently than those that have gone into administration before us.

The League will do a Leeds and make us agree not to take legal action in return for transferring the Golden Share. There's loads of articles relating to agreeing not to pursue legal action and the other member clubs voting against Leeds. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-474274/Leeds-slam-perverse-decision-uphold-points-penalty.html This is not a normal business transaction "dispute", this is a totally different ball game and although I'm massively oversimplifying it, the general gist is if we want to play ball we have to abide by their rules ad ad hoc decisions, as made by the league and its members. The League and the member clubs will quite clearly look at substance over form and see that although the Football Club never went into adminsitration, the parent company did as a direct result of the football club's trading position.

Well, I think the line: "if more people had ignored the fact that Lowe was the chairman and "supported" the team", was rather aimed at those who couldn't ignore the fact that Lowe was Chairman and not aimed at those that stayed away for a myriad of other reasons.

The biggest single factor on gates is success and so i'm sure that crap performances would have impacted on attendances. However, in the absence of that success there might be an opportunity to engender a spirit of unity and togetherness and maintain attendances (as shown by Norwich). Sadly, Lowe, Wilde, Wotte or Poortvliet were never ever going to be able to provide the figurehead/passion/spirit of unity, whereas given a more empathatic board it may have been possible.

I don't think people misinterpreted Steve's post, as Steve was clear that he was blaming those who put their hatred of Lowe before supporting the team. Steve never attempted to point out for whatever reason. "if more people had ignored the fact that Lowe was the chairman and "supported" the team, we wouldn't find ourselves in this complete ****up of a situation". He did not go into other valid reasons for staying away e.g. poor results, poor performances, poor value for money etc etc etc IMHO those that boycotted were the least significant with regards numbers and ££££'s, with those who stayed away due to poor performances and results easily outweighing them. And on top of that, falling attendances was only one part of a much bigger problem. The active anti-Lowe boycotters were a small part of the falling attendance issue, with falling attendances being only a part of a larger problem, which is why I find it hard to blame this small pocket for the mess we ended up with.

Patrick trainers, Patrick football boots, Patrick Kagools, patrick everything for a crazy two years LOL.

Managed to pull a sicky from school and heard the Radio Solent announcement live. The ran up to school at the end of the day to make sure everyone knew about it. The next 2 1/2 years was a Patrick haze!!!!!!!!!

But I don't think many people put their hatred/displeasure at Lowe being Chairman before supporting the team. Those that did numbered in the 100's, not the 1,000's and were not the main reason for our demise??? As is the case with 99% of teams, the main factor affecting attendances were results and perfomrances on the pitch, particularly at home. After the die hards you have to provide supporters with a reason to come and last season we failed miserably in making them turn up. And in the absence of decent results and performances there was nothing/no one at the Club who could engender a spirit of unity to try and get them to come to matches.

Truly wonderful. I don't think any Club's fans, with the possible exception of United and Cantona, can say they have experienced such spectacular goals from one player over a prolonged timeframe in recent years. Who else is there who could hold a candle to him??? Cantona at United Henry at Arsenal Wright at Arsenal Gerrard at Liverpool (some spectacular goals, but not the range) Shearer at Newcastle (see gerrard above) Di Canio at West Ham (only there for 4 years) Not bad company IMHO

Dutch coaches???

You do have to wonder just makes someone tick if they have to get their kicks from trolling these boards under various user names, sending unsolicited e-mails and generally getting enjoyment out of spamming forums (and that's before we get on to the sob sob stories :smt046). I have a very good picture of Sundance and it certainly fits your starting point;)

Well feel free to point us in the direction of all these posts, as in my book schadenfreude is gaining pleasure in another person's misfortune and I'm afraid I haven't seen that on this thread (nor on others). Sure some are suggesting Wotte shouldn't be near the first team because they think he is shyte, but that's not schadenfreude. Either you don't know the meaning of the word or as Ron has said you're reading things that just aren't there (and as you seem to be an expert on the latter then I'm guessing you know what schadenfreude means).

Who are all these people then?? You even tried to label me as one of them a few weeks ago, which couldn't be farther from the truth. As Give It To Ron has said, methinks that once again the problem is with the reader (i.e. you) who is seeing something that doesn't exist. The overwhelming majority of supporters appear to be basing their thoughts about Wotte solely on his performance as a part of the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up and then on his subsequent performance when he was solely in charge. You seem to be rather precious if you think football fans on a message board suggesting they don't want a "failed manager" in charge next season demonstrates schardenfreude.