Frank's cousin

Ahr...because teh FL think we are... i know its a bit of a mare to get our heads round, but I think I can see why its panned out as it has - SFC will be free from getting additional points deducted becayuse as far as teh FL is concerned SLH will have in effect a CVA in place - whether SFC accept that we are Inextricably linked to SLH is irrelevent - and as such teh FL could not also impose further Points deductions on SFC if they ahve already accepted the CVA in place between SLH and its creditors.... **** now even i am confused ;-)

Timing - they do not want a club going through te courts which could take months and even years which would make it impossible for all clubs in the league to know their final position until the courst reach a decision - the effect on clubs in terms of relegation and promotion could have further consequences etc - which is why the FL insist on member waiving the right to appeal against punsihments that have mandatory points deductions or impact on final placings. I think in our case we were looking for the RIGHT to appeal as this would in effect open the door to having the penalty overturned asd the FL would not want this to drag on - I can see the FL's POV in this as it is about the consequences of legal action, but where the rules fall down is that they feel compelled to instigate penalties according to the stage in teh season which although means that the penalties have an impact, is from a legal perspective on dodgy ground - it also punishes new owners or puts them off, for sins of the past which is where you can see Pinnacles perspective.

I see what you are saying, but i think its a case of all parties accepting the situation without the need to admit they were wrong ;-) I think this explanation actually allows all parties to save face - The FL who insist we are in admin as SFC=SLH so in effect if SLH have agreed the 55p in the pound with all creditors they will have a legal contract with said creditors which will satisfy the FL rules /need for CVA - But as SFC do not consider themselves in admin they wont want to have a CVA in place independently because as you say this would be admiting they were in admin - As it is the compromise should be that: The FL accept the SLH agreements with all creditors as the CVA, afterall they have insisted that SLH and SFC are 'inextricably' linked, and SFC does not need to have its own CVAs at it has no creditors anyway - so in theory no one loses face. I dont see how the FL could later insist that SFC have a CVA in place or points deduction when under their own rules they have accepted the CVA is in place with SLH which they in turn believe to be the same as SFC.... does that make sense? ;-)

Sorry dont agree - because teh new ownesr are buying assest from SLH for a fee of 15 mil - a fee that has been agreed by creditors and teh administrators thus accepting 53-55p in teh pound they will in effect be accepting that as a contract and thus a 'CVA' - SFC will not need a CVA as it will have NO creditors outstanding. SLH will have met all the obligations of the creditors as they will ahev agreed to the assett sale price (15 mil) which providing SLH has no outstanding debt to HMRC or other clubs will mean SFC is free to trade and partake within the league rules - so I think that teh extra points thing is a red rerring...

This whole CVA thing is actually a red herring - SFC will not be coming out of adinistration as it is NOT in administration... The new owners are buying certain assets from teh administrator of SLH for 15 mil - a figure agreed with SLH creditors which is in effect the same as SLH agreeing a CVA with their creditors. So the league cannot and will not impose further penalties, unless we still owed the HMCR or other clubs money...(or we go into admin as SFC in future) so that is not one of teh issues if you ask me.

As i mentioned on another thread - the problem with purchasing a club from administrators is that teh whole this is in the public eye - so naturally we feel left in teh dark if some major or teh most interseting questions seem unanswered - I too would love to know who it is, but appreciate why someone would wish reamin anonymous until its confirmed exactly becauise of the pitfalls that can ruin any prospective deal. Duncan, I feel your frustration, but also we need to try and avoid falling into the traps of paranoia - I dont think there is anything out of the ordinary in TLs posts or things that dont 'add up' - there are clearly still challenges to be overcome which is a normal part of such complex deals. If the backer is not prepared to continue with us on -10 points, then we just have to accept that and move one... if you are the one parting with 15 mil, you have the right do do so on your own terms... but i believe TL and MLT when they say they will conclude ... provided we dont now get issues with teh administrator as teh Swiss and MJ come back into the picture...

Think its about time we cut pinnacle and TL some slack... Whatever the outcome today or over the next few days, we simply cant fault the efforts made and the monies already committed. I hope like most they still feel the deal is worth completing even with the FLs position...we have to be honest and accept that they wont budge and therefore its now in the clubs best interests to accept the decison and try and conclude the purchase. Its always frustrtaing, but these things DO take time - those alledged takeovers which appear quick and easy are usually where a single owner or majjority shareholder simlpy sells his/her shares to another individual - quick and easy. Othere s that appear quick have usually ahd months of secret negotiations and planning before being leaked and then quickly announced. In our case the whole thing has been played out in public from day 1 and so the time frame SEENMS long but in reality is the norm... as frsutrating as it may seem. The difficulty for us is that we have had so much false hope, and have been led up the gard path by various chancers laying false rumour, or playing on our desperation that we have run out of goodwill and tend not to be as supportive as we should - we simpy struggle to believe and will do until its all resolved... there is also the fear factor - IF Pinnacle decide not to continue we have that worry about MJ and even the unknown Swiss group seems a better option... So I know its hard, but lets not get too down beat, TL has stated they will go ahead as did MLT on SSN, so its surely a question of sooner rather than later. Good luck to those involved and here's to a speedy resolution.

I can see it now... ' the football league can firm that it held an emergency meeting today with espect to teh ongoing situation with Southampton Football club. NO conclusions have been reached, but we can confirm that discussions will be ongoing until at least Friday...'

Notice that 3pm Echo update to the article that has been there all day indicates that the FL meeting is finished and that pinnacle expect clarification shortly...

Notice that 3pm Echo update to the article that has been there all day indicates that the FL meeting is finished and that pinnacle expect clarification shortly...

UHm - sometimes though its necessary to use IMHO - because of the numpties who seem to treat opinion as fact if it supports their own opinion if you get what I mean ;-)

MW promised investors in the wings - 'football first' and Tshirts...

I think that's the crux. It may well be that the Fl's own rules do give us gtrounds for a potentially successful appeal, but the league naturally want us to accept teh punsihment as they see it as within the spirit of the rules and the most 'sporting' decision. I would suspect that a compromsie will eb possible, given that because of the uniqueness of the situation that SFC cannot agree CVA aswe are technically not in administration, some sort of agreement with respect to this would need to be reached so we dont leave the dorr open to further points deductions down the line if accepting the -10?

Meaningless in what sense? because its not full of detail and timings? Have we not had enough of such 'meaningful' updates from the previous tyrekickers? Its true teh statemnet does not reveal much, but it does contain a reasonable request to maybe see the sitaution as sensitive and not yet clear cut - TL will also by readding between the lines - be looking to get fans to remain patient and calm and not get too wound up by the situation.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tony Lynam Guys Since I've had calls from various press (and no doubt my colleagues have too), I think it's only fair that you are all told the same thing at the same time, hence a quick time out to drop you a line. I want to make something crystal clear. I have NOT ASKED for a decision about the 10 point deduction. I have met every condition within the Football Leagues own rules, and thus should be allowed the right to an appeal after our takeover is complete, should I wish to take that action. As I have explained to countless people involved - detach yourself from the situation, and lose your emotional ties for a moment, and just ask yourself one question. “If I am being asked to waive my rights to an appeal against a decision, how confident are the people who made that decision that it was the correct decision in the first place?” I appreciate that the on-going uncertainty is causing concern to both fans and staff alike, so it is in all of our interests to pull together and make sure these issues are resolved as quickly as possible. I am confident that the Football League will work with us to resolve their issue, and the Lawyers will continue their work in resolving a couple of minor legalities. When all of that is done, we will put pen to paper. Finally, please bear in mind that Southampton Football Club will be a member of the Football League. Whilst I appreciate peoples frustration, please do not allow your heart to rule your head and make accusations against the League. As a member, we will need to work with the Board of the League and other members, so they are our colleagues. I remain confident that all of these issues will be resolved in a timely manner. Kind regards Tony Thanks for the update... and before you get the wrong impression, I think its born out of the frustration of these last two years let alone the last few months! Most I think would agree that waiving a right of appeal is NOT in the best interests of the club, but maybe feel that given the current situation, and whatever the legal technicalties, seeing a confirmation of our survival and the unveiling of the new owner/s and teh positive sthis would bring are in some ways more imporatnt to fans right now than the 10 points - which given the wave of renewed optimism and support could be overcome anyway with the right management in place.... The frustration is not helped by the Football leagues stance as you mention, why insist on no right of appeal if the case is solid anyway - I suspect because in the cold light of legal scrutiny the club may have a techical case, but do we have the stomach for such a fight? There is alos the greater good of the game to consider... the impact that a successful appeal could have on the league and other clubs - I know its not fashionable to consider anything but our own position, but it would be hypocritical of me to condem the the way the game has evolved in terms finace and what this has done to stiffle true sporting competition, if not accepting that sometimes its perhaps better to take one on the chin for the greater good and maintain the moral high ground? Whatever, I am sure you and your team and advisors will be doing all you can for a successful resoltion and I wish you all the very best in your negotiations. Thanks for the graft these last months. It is appreciated. Frank

Indeed. f you read Tony Lynam's posts the thing that strikes you is the bull shiedt free - common sense communications, no promises, no fan friendly rhetoric which we have all heard before - if pinnacle are unable to conclude for whatever reason, i hope teh swiss come back...

Sorry but all they need to say is 'no comment' - or its in the best interests of teh club to let Pinnacle resolve what they need to do..,. end of...

Well for starters its real name and realistic statements - no promises, no idealistic dreams and no fan friendly rhetoric - just good old fashioned common sense - Kind of expected it really as my old buddy NSS speaks highly of the guy.

Thanks for the update... and before you get the wrong impression, I think its born out of the frustration of these last two years let alone the last few months! ;-) Most I think would agree that waiving a right of appeal is NOT in the best interests of the club, but maybe feel that given the current situation, and whatever the legal technicalties, seeing a confirmation of our survival and the unveiling of the new owner/s and teh positive sthis would bring are in some ways more imporatnt to fans right now than the 10 points - which given the wave of renewed optimism and support could be overcome anyway with the right management in place.... The frustration is not helped by the Football leagues stance as you mention, why insist on no right of appeal if the case is solid anyway - I suspect because in the cold light of legal scrutiny the club may have a techical case, but do we have the stomach for such a fight? There is alos the greater good of the game to consider... the impact that a successful appeal could have on the league and other clubs - I know its not fashionable to consider anything but our own position, but it would be hypocritical of me to condem the the way the game has evolved in terms finace and what this has done to stiffle true sporting competition, if not accepting that sometimes its perhaps better to take one on the chin for the greater good and maintain the moral high ground? Whatever, I am sure you and your team and advisors will be doing all you can for a successful resoltion and I wish you all the very best in your negotiations. Thanks for the graft these last months. It is appreciated. Frank

Sorry but teh point of this thread was to question why MJ was publically announcing his 'saviour bid' again now, when the pinnacle bid is in teh balance - it cant help with the clubs batgaining position. Thus it smacks of self interest rather than his saintly whispers of 'doing it fro the club' so he should keep stum until pinnacle is finished with their work IMHO..

The best examples are probably Chelski huges debts only sustained by either a billionnaire sugar daddy - not living within their means and buying success which makes our 7 mil punt in the CCC look like peanuts - The rules are there to feck you over some more when you have already been fecked over - in effect you dont get punished for actually succeeding in having a competitive edge by borrowing, only if you fail eg no competitive edge - where the feck is the logic in that. I can fully understand the league determined to see clubs work within their means, but these rules dont seem to do that or provide a suitable punsihment for clubs actually 'cheating' and getting away with it.... year on year... the mind boggles.

True, but I would argue that when in the prem, as it was easily serviceable the new stadium was fine ! and being relegated should be enough proof that we gained no competitive advantage from it or the players we bought at the time;-) True we did in that CCC season and for that fair enough punishment should follow... ... And I have always argued that we should have tried to avoid admin at all costs for that very reason, because it is now causing concern for the bidder and we could end up with Whackojacko! My ideal compromise from the FL rules perspective would be that a club could have the points back - if they can guarrantee to pay back all creditors in full if new owners come in, or agree deals with creditors for FULL repayment of a period of time.. it is IMPOSSIBLE to sit here and type about moral and ethical rationale for having the right to appeal, whilst creditors get 50p in the £ and the club is debt free - whoopee for admin - it got rid of lowe....but puts at risk the club the employees, the smaller creditors etc and new owners get it for a steal... So from that perspective I think we should accept it and move on and admit for bloody lucky we have been... but from a legal perspective, if within the rules, we shoudl do what we can...

1. Fair enough - but surely you get my point - a right of appeal should not be a bargaining chip - you either have it or you dont. 2. We could not exercise our right at that time point because we had administrator in charge of teh club - and this is the first that has been mentioned about a time limit on an appeal - what happens if new evidence is brought to light etc? 3. NOt sure what you mean - the FL made their decsion based on their interpretation that SLH and SFC were one and the same - SLH andSFC said no we are not therefore the rule does not apply etc - the impact of the -10 will in effectonly punish SFC as SLH no longer exists as such therefore both SLH and SFC could both appeal and it not be an admission that they are one and teh same? 4. I dont think we ghave any problem with understanding why the rule is there, BUT when you consider that the the vast majority of this debt was a) a stadium loan which was entered into when it could be serviced and paid for by revenues that could have been used on players, it seems churlish to suggest that this is the reason... secondly yes teh club under Wilde and to a lesser extent Crouch overspend by 7 mil, but as soon as we were not promoted the new board cut these costs and loaned out high wage earners in effect determined to get within our means - its a mute point but we were trying to work within the spirit of the rules... 5. Its the FL rules themselves that say that a club cannnot be a PLC and as such we did not set it up, but in efefct had to have a holding company -a holding company that did have several other interests such as media (radio station) and Finance (insurance services) etc that were only recently sold off... I know its tenuous, but if applying teh stricht letter of teh rules wyou can see why an appeal ight eb possible... and in this case surely its more about maintaining a right to appeal - surely its wrong to use that as a bargaining chip in such a case?

As pointed out thoug its notr about whether its right or wrong to have the -10 points - as we all accept there are arguments for this and some against but generally the 'fair' issue is that we should accept it... BUT this is not about being FAIR - IF the competition rules etc are not legally watertight and within those rules the club should have the RIGHT to present this case/argument - eg teh right of Appeal is a basic human right and has nothing to do with whether we think we can win or even have a case to present... The reason the FL want teh club to waiver its right is simple - because we could win and the impications this has say for the league if the ruling were only given say after the end of the season and the points returned - what effect on all the other clubs etc.... - I think what Pinnacle need to try and get is perhaps a compromise of sime sort, but not waive their basic right of appeal

Uhm... I wonder- I wonder if the rules themselves could be challenged - If issue being that it punishes clubs/individuals that were either not in place or could not influence the decisions made that brought about ruling. Its an interesting concept for a potential challenge as it could be argued you are prosecuting someone for an offence committed by others? I hate seeing Sport in the courts and I hope it does not come to that, but the problem we have right now is that it directly impacts on our survival so we should use everything at our disposal to force a compromise. Whether its right or wrong to have teh points deducted is a rule/legal issue and should be dealt with as such. What is NOT a legal is issue but our right, is a right of appeal should we chose to do do. It should NOT be a condition set by the FL that clubs waiver a legal right - that is simply morally and possibly legally wrong and should be challenged if you ask me.