um pahars

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

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.