Frank's cousin

'You're so vain'.... now on this thread could that apply to? ;-)

LOL ;-)

Chees on that clarification Steve - did seem high. So realistically considering 99% of teh debt seems to be owed to Barclays and Aviva, provided they agree to the deal we should be home and dry with respect to the FL? Yet their statement is still ambiguous in that its aludes to points deductions IF a club has gained significantly from comming out of admin debt free - or at least thats the way it reads to me? If I am redaing this wrong then once again it makes te Pinnacle group look a bit silly, yest if I am right, you cans see why they might be concerned by teh FLs position... blinking confusing. Ideally we the FL to make a statement of clarity - a public declaration that outlines the criteria which we must fulfil to guarrantee no further sanctions as a result of this deal...

Thing is the FL statement is both clear as mud and ambiguous - Its a great oxymoron really - on teh one hand its states no other issues apart for the waiver against the appeal of the-10 points, but then goes on to leave the way open for further sporting sanction if teh 'club' do not satisfy the rules re admin.... Then we have the query about where the money is coming from... Really dont have a clue now what to believe - What is clear though is if the backer has 100's of millions, how odd it is that we dont have any confirmation that the deposit was paid in full by the consortium... that does not add up, nor does thier unwillingness to declare who the backer was/are

My doubts are similar to Steve's - do they have the funds - It seems odd that its still unclear as to wh and what funded the exclusivity period and I am also concerned that from what we have seen released publically, I cant see where it says we are now immune for further points deductions at this time. The FL statement leaves plenty of room for further sanctions based on their rules - So alot depend son the structure of the deal. Eg its possible that a deal can be struck with additinal payments in teh future subject to success - something that jackson was proposing - this might satisfy the FLs 75% rule, without the need to spend 20mil + on the club at this time? But Fialka seems quite bullish on this and its now unclear as to whether this is bravado or whether he has had private assurances from the FL... which I cant see happening. I hope its not a misinterpretation... We need to get away from the paranoia - The FL do not wnat us to go out of business, but the rules are there...

True so maybe the 75% rule was the sticking pint.... On the more general rule, where I see the system as perhaps flawed is that it fails to take into account individual circumstances - eg the vast majority of or 'debt' is actually a mortgage taken out on infrastructure - something that was necessary really given the legal requirements following the publication of the Taylor report and the need for all seater - we needed to move really and did so at a time when it was easily sustainable within out revenue - we did NOT borrow heavily in the prem on players and wages as Leeds did - something that ironically we have forgotten in the the current blame game - whatever else LOwe is HE DID run teh club with minimal financial risk and within its means when in teh prem - something that everyone calls for now, but at the time we said was lacking ambition, this refusal to take a 'risk' on success - so Hearn can go feck himself on that score - our 'living within our means meant we did not invest enough to just stand still let alone improve as all around us clubs were borrowing more and more to stay ahead and in the prem... Yes when Lowe went Wilde's board approved that spending of money we had at te time, but on contracts that we would not be able to sustain if we did not get promoted - Crouch did not veto when on the football board so this was in effect financial risk that is directly hat teh FL is trying to discourage through the penalty system... So on balance yes we deserve the -10 points for the administration, but considering how the debt was created the complete lack of any sporting advantage to us outside the premierleague, if talking about the 'spirit' of the law/rules we are hardly in the same ballpark as those clubs who ran up massive debts on playesr and wages - yet we could get puniched the same as Leeds or worse - that is what teh FL rules fail to take ionto account and where IMHO its unfair - and just for the record Hearn can go feck himself agian as he obviously does not appreciate these differences...

That would make sence and be serviceable if we averaged over 16-17k gate.

That seems high because I am sure in one of teh previous annual financial statements its about 1.4-1.6 mil a year - unless Crouch and wilde renogotiated it? up?

This actually clarifies quite a bit - reading these statments from the FL it is clear that the ownership is not the issue - as the FL see the club as the club who ever the owners are - as such if new owners buy saints from SLH and as a result have cleared all debts, then the football league have the right to impose further sporting sanctions if they deam the club has gained an advantage by having the debts cleared. So what it depends on is whether the FL feel that SLH agreeing with creditors the amount they will recieve is deemed sufficient to ensure the club has not gained an advantage. We can argure that it would not be fair in our eyes, but you can see the FLs point eg. someone waiting long enough could buy the club for 5 mil and clear off 25 mill of debt - which would be a huge advantage and likely to incur further points deductions - so the key is that the bidder is prepared to ensure the deal is structured to satisfy not only the SLH creditors, but also the football league with respect to minimising the debt wiped clear. There is a very simple way round this. If the new bidders could agree a new deal with AVIVA to take on the stadium repayments in full, they could clear all debts to the remaining creditors for about 6 mil thus avoiding any FL claim that we have avoided repayment of substantial debt. The trick then is to budget to ensure we continue to trade within our means including the mortgage payments to AVIVA of approx 1.7 mil a year - which should be possible.

MOrally its justified - we spent money we could not repay on an attempt to get promoted - when that failed and the parachute money ran out we started loosing money. When the results got worse the gates fell even more and we lost more money so its our own fault so yes we deserve -10 points.

Of course there are plenty - how many would come here is different matter.The new owners if we get some may well look to bring in change eventually, but having Wotte look after the soide over the next few weeks if he is prepared to do is is no bad thing - he has shown he is honorable - maybe not good enough longterm but right now I'll settle for honorable because its a darn sight more than we got from the recent boards....

I actually think its the opposite - because if they have limited football experience, the first thing they need to do it get up to speed and settle in and learn - by potentially keeping Wotte albeit short term it helps with continuity rather than rushing in and making rash new appointments when you dont know the first thing about L1 football...

Thats hardly a visionary prediction since we start on -10 and will have nothing left BUT kids with no money for any new players... under those circumstances we should be lucky someone is willing to stay and do something as I cant see many takers from here... You want a winner? Well start by being one yourself. We as a fan base need to start acting like winners too, by stopping this constant blame game - every feckin thing that goes wrong its who can we blame? mostly it was Lowe, then Wilde and or Crouch, then Lowe again,then Fry, then TL (but not MLT as he's a god - when if blaming TL we have to blame MLT equally as they both knew the same level of info) next it will be Wotte, a bloke who stuck by us under these circumstances - this constant fecking need to blame someone for the trials and tribulations of the club - when sometimes we should just shut the feck up and go and watch no matter how crap we are or whose fault it is.... this constant misinformed ignorant urban myth generating media ****** about 'where has all the money gone and financial mismanagement from Lawrie and even Dave Bassett last night, jumped on as gospel by the ignorant - spread as such by those with an agenda, when the books clearly show where it went for those who bothered to look. Its all just utter bo llox. When you sign up to be a fan you support through thick and thin - if you dont want to fair enoughstop supporting and stop going if it no longer appeals, but you also then need to stop calling yourself a supporter - because supporters support first and foremost. We are about as low as we can get and still we get this kind of negative, miserable self indulgent rubbish... Time to step up to the mark - we get behind the side and support who ever is in charge come what may - or feck off and go worship the telly like the plastic prem sky brigade.

How many other managers would we interset at teh moment? No owners, possibly going bust on friday, key players sold or out of contract and walking and about 6 weeks untill teh season starts when there might no even be a club - ANYONE who says they are prepared to work under those conditions must be mad.... but hey three cheers for the Crazy Dutch .... Seriously, whatever we think of the relegation and Wottes imapct on that, and his abilities as a manager, right now we need folk prepared to stand up and be counted and him staying on in our hour of need is honourable and deserves respect.

The only thing I can think of that would mean potential further points deductions is if the FL are not satisfied that the 15 mil paid for SFC to be 'debt free' is enough for the SLH to enter into a CVA as opposed to being teh best they can get... that would sort of make sense, as until the purchase is completed, FSFC are linked.... as we have seen teh FL has also previously punsihed 'new' clubs in this way otherwise a club in admin, could simply fold, satrt under a ne w'company' and thus expect to avoid the points deductions? In our case I think teh figure agreed between Fry and the bidders at 15 was the minimum acceptable to the creditors to in effect enter a CVA - so I dont think the FL would be likely to add to te points deductions - I do think Pinnacle simply failed because the commitment for the backers began to crumble....

Wont be the same - no history, not SFC as we know it... ;-(

Without wanting to satrt another barny on this, the choice was not Lowe's the moment those cheques bounced-he then had the legal obligation to call them in as we were in effect trading whilst insolvent - I think the plan was to get by until the seasons end when player sales and ST sales would have get things going.... in effect you could argue we wer fecked by the transfer window!

BUt SLH/SFC are not applying for a license, only teh NEW independent SFC is, which would NOT be comming out of admin as would be a new company - in effect..??

But the club would be sepearte from teh comapny that is in administration - its not now, but woudl be after a sale..

THats true, I agree, but the Catch 22 is that all clubs need to sign the appeal waiver to get their license, yet teh FL could not includea clause that says no further sanctions etc... but surely they could agree and in writing that IF SLH have agreed CVAs with teh creditors based on receiving the 15 mil from teh new ownesr of SFC, that no further sporting sanctions would be applied based on SFC coming out of admin... I think the rod for their own back created by teh FL is that by docking us -10 for being inextricably linked to SLH, they are somehow not prepared to acknoledge that after being sold SFC are no longer inextricably linked...this is what does not make sese, as SLH will NOT come out of Admin, they will be wound up... SFC will be a new entity having been purchased from SLH so now I am confused.... ;-(

BUt can you then explain how legally the FL could apply fuirther sanctions to the NEW SFC Ltd, without teh new SFC ltd itself doing something against the rules? Because after the sale, SLH would no longer be inextricably linked to SFC - it would be an entirley seperate issue. The Waiver against appeal is something ALL clubs must sign to get their golden share because of the impact legal proceedings can have on the league due to teh length of time they can take....

OK but from a legal perspective IF SFC and SMS are SOLD to a third party as this deal was all about, this in effect would be a new SFC Ltd, and thus a seperate entity from the remaining shell SLH... The NEW SFC ltd were applying for a NEW license to participate and according to the FL the only stipulation was that like ALL FL clubs this new body agreed to waiver the rights of appeal. The FL sanctions were already inplace against SLH/SFC based on that administration - and SLH would then be wound up. I can not see how the FL would have any legal case in applying further sanctions against a NEW entity from which it was now entirely seperate, based on what the previous holding company does in the future.... IT may be that this was not clear and what TL/MLT were looking to have clarified especially in light of the appeal waiver, but according the FL the appeal waiver was against the -10 points already in place. Without being a legal bod, I would suggest that there is no way the FL could insist on a legal waiver against appealing FUTURE sanctions imposed because of actions of a company to which the current club as NO links... surely they would not be insisting on that - It simplydoes not make sense.

Sorry this does not make sense - Until we are liquidated, in which case creditors just get what is there, the sale was being structured with creditor approval as we are led to understand - hence the price being set at 15 mil in place.

Should be - why? Because the the purchase price would have been agreed between FRy and teh creditors as the minimum acceptable - this will be contractually agreed with creditors then waivering any rights to further claims which is what a CVA is... the FL could not at a later date start to demand a seperate CVA as this would then be saying that SLH and SFC were NOT inextricably linked as the FL have stated and i the -10 point punsihment for admin. The only thing I can speculate on is this. That the deal on the table was similar in structure to the rumoured Jackson bid, in that creditors would receive further payments on success/future revenues which would have formed part of the CVA - thus if this also included a time frame, could be why teh FL were insisting on reviewing teh finance behind teh deal and maybe the granting or the 'ALLEGED/RUMOURED' 2 year license?

Sorry red herring again - other sanctions would only be applied if we continued or broke further rules in future - If SFC and SMS td were in effect purchased, with SLH having AGREED the fees with the creditors that in effect is a CVA - provided teh new SFC dont go into admin, then I fail to see how the FL could apply more sanctions, does not make sense.