VectisSaint

In general this is true, rules of a Member Club can say anything they want if agreed by the members, with one exception. That is if the rules require members to break the law. So everything to do with points deductions is perfectly legitimate, but if they say a member must avoid paying tax or will only be accepted if they promise to take drugs, for example, then that is technically illegal. There must be something in the contract that the FL is insisting on us signing that Pinnacle lawyers or our creditors are seeing as a requirement to break the law, either commercial or criminal - but then of course it becomes a matter of interpretation and presumably the FL lawyers see things differently. This is why it is taking time to resolve, anything involving lawyers takes time as they have to be seen to be providing best advice (aka making as much money) as possible.

Could, doesn't mean they will of course. Most of the players probably have no other offers on the plate, and most of what we have no they are probably better off seeing this through. After all most of them are the under achievers that got us relegated in the first place. But you are right about the ordinary staff. But I guess they know where they stand because TL has spoken with them.

They don't say how many hours, perhaps they meant within about 720 hours at the end of May, they could still be correct, if things move on apace now

"a highly successful entrepreneur who has built a multi-billion pound empire “using lashings of debt” in just seven years" Oh my God, sounds great...

But thats the point. Currently we are not members, we are applying to become members. On top of that we were also one of 20 clubs who almost destroyed the FL by breaking away and forming the Premier League in 1991. The FL will never forgive those 22 clubs who broke their monopoly on professional football in England and who destroyed their cash cow. Funnily enough Leeds were also among the 22, and they have had top rate treatment fF

The FA run the PL, so how do you think the FA could help? If you think the FL are bad, the FA are a bunch of shambolic amateurs, after all they even thought appointing Lowe to their board was a good idea. As for Sultana, bloody good riddance. They were crap, and no-one with any sense was going to pay for 2 subscriptions.

No that is the whole point, it is not all that is at stake here, as TL and several others have pointed out on numerous occassions. There are other legal issues to be resolved as well, and this would be no different for anyone else. The issue is with Barclays or one or more of the other creditors, not just the FL issue, which on the face of it seems close to resolution. Any other party coming in now, would not be able to complete for weeks (3 at least), and until they can then we have no entry into the FL, we also cannot pay staff later this week. The Pinnacle deal is our one and only chance, and the sooner people realise this the better. That said I don't see Pinnacle standing aside now, all the vibes coming from them are that they will complete the deal and pay the wages this week.

I really fail to see what good it would do right now, other than satisfy curiousity. There is no issue with the man behind the deal as far as we can tell, the financials are clearly not an issue. By outing himself, he (or she I guess) simply opens himself up to all sorts of other issues, including impacts on any other business interests. I seriously doubt that we will learn any more until the deal is done, or not as the case may be. Only then will Gavin Davies/Rod Stewart/Paul Allen/Phil Collins/Andrew Lloyd Webber/Richard Branson/Max Mosely/Manfred Mann/Leon Crouch/Peter Crouch/Uncle Tom Cobley or whoever be named.

Nothing at all. On the other hand, no other party can satisfy our creditors until they are given guaranteed FL membership either so any other deal is also dead in the water. You'd better hope that Pinnacle do a deal, the alternative is an entry into the Wessex League.

If we were called West Ham the League would not be involved. And if you think the League are a problem, then the FA are far far worse.

Actually I don't believe we will. We will have cleared our debts in full and have a mortgage on the stadium as we had before. I don't believe anywhere is it agreed that the mortgage or any part of it has been or will be paid off. I would expect that Aviva will agree to a restructuring of the mortgage, but unless Pinnacle have actually agreed to pay the whole thing off I imagine that we will still have a mortgage in the end. I do howver believe that all the real creditors will have been paid in full, that is Barclays Bank and anyone who has had payments blocked since Lowe went over the agreed o/d limit in April.

True, but many people have Sky these days.

As they have since the 17th June when it was last updated.

You are absolutely right. The FL are not scared, we will lose any appeal, whether we have a case or not. And to all those who keep spouting that the FL are breaking the law or whatever, they are not, they are running a Members Club in accordance with the rules of that Club. No-one is being forced to act illegally in any way, shape or form. BUT, it does seem that what Pinnacle are looking to confirm is at least the right to appeal, and that is an altogether different matter. Mawhinney did state that we had the right to appeal, and it seems now thats what Pinnacle are trying to confirm. I doubt very much that they would actually appeal, because they are not that dumb (I hope) because the result of the appeal is a foregone conclusion. But to sign away the right of appeal sets a dangerous precendent for SFC and all other member clubs in the future and leaves us open to further punishments. All IMHO of course.

Agreed. As mentioned in the Guardian on Friday, the sticking point is with our Creditors, not directly with the FL (though the FL clearly hold the key to unblocking these issues). We need updates from the FL, then and only then can we make progress with the Creditors (I assume Barclays). I can see this process taking a few more days yet, meanwhile I have chewed my fingernails down to the elbow.

In my opinion the most compelling piece of reporting was in the Guardian last Friday, and is probably as close to the mark as anything else. It points to the issue being the creditors and not the FL, which makes sense to me at least. i don't recall anyone mentioning this one until yesterday when I posted it on other threads. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/19/southampton-takeover-pinnacle-consortium

How is it a "massive conflict of interest". It would be total madness if the FL Board did not comprise members who represented members interests, i.e. the Clubs. The member Clubs have voted for the representatives to sit on the Board (including Saints), together with the executive (professional administrative) members. This is absolutely no different to when Wiseman and then Lowe sat on the FA Premier League Board - they were elected there by their peers (quite why in the case of Lowe is beyond me but there we are). Almost every Members Club in the country is organised in a similar way, committees of members elected by the members. Clearly with something of the nature of the FL, some professional administrators are also appointed, plus some figureheads/buffoons such as Mawhinney.

People continue to see this as a Legal issue and therefore continue to miss the point. The issue is not "legal" it is an issue with regards to the rules of a Members Club. Those rules are set by the members (of whcih SFC was one, possibly isn't at the moment) and all members are bound by those rules. It has been demonstrated time and again in many sports that any court of arbitration or the like always (or nearly always) finds for the sporting body in question, because there is an understanding (and a perfectly reasonable one) that lawyers should not interfere with sporting regulations in any way. the only exception is where Clubs regulations would incite members to act illegally. To appeal against the 10 point deduction is completely futile, and is not the issue at hand. The issue is that our creditors have refused to sign a deal with Pinnacle until they have guarantees about our FL membership from the FL. This is what the FL are due to discuss today, and yes it probably depends on Pinnacle agreeing not to appeal, something which Pinnacle would be mad to do anyway because they would lose.

Have said in several threads that the issue is not the 10 point penalty, there is something else involved. Today I found this on the Guardian web site which perhaps sheds some more light on the matter, haven't seen this elsewhere, though I could have missed it amongst all the crap that is being written: "...[Pinnacle's] solicitors unhappy over two legal aspects of the negotiations with creditors. Principal among the concerns is that a notice of withdrawal, issued by the Football League when the club was deemed to be in insolvency proceedings, be withdrawn to ensure that Southampton can compete as a league club next term. "There are a number of very small issues that remain, the principal one of which is the Football League situation," said the joint-administrator, Mark Fry. "They have agreed to have an emergency meeting on Monday, but until any bidder can be satisfied about membership of the League they won't complete a purchase of the club." So the problem appears to be that one or more of our creditors are causing a problem, because they are concerned that FL may not let us play ball next season. Presumably Barclays are playing hard ball and want guarantees before agreeing to the deal with Pinnacle. So until Pinnacle get agreement with the FL about our membership of the League, the deal is blocked. That would explain why Pinnacle were not aware of a situation until the last minute. It is clearly Barclays or possibly one of the other creditors that has thrown the spanner in the works. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/19/southampton-takeover-pinnacle-consortium

I very much doubt the issue is the 10 points. If it was I don't think there would be an issue, Pinnacle would take the hit. Making up 10 points should not be a problem, Keegan amassed 101 points with Fulham, take 10 off that and 91 would still probably see us promoted. There is more to this that the simplistic view of appealing the 10 point penalty. In any case any appeal is also doomed to failure.

If only people could learn that it is the Football League and not the Football Association, then at least one good thing would have come out of this sorry mess.

No of course not. The man (and Wilde) is the reason we are in the **** in the first place. If he had been even half intelligent he would actually have ensure we went into administration a little earlier then we would not have a 10 point penalty this coming season at all. the guy is a *****, and no thanks should be going his way.

You want to bet. Abusive emails wil galvanise the FL view, especially if the FL is not the problem, as is possibly the case. By the way the murderers and dictators are more associated with the FA Premier League which you seem to wish to return to rather than the mere amateurs we are currently dealing with. There are far more amateurs in the FA, the FL was always the professional side of the game at least until 1992, thats why they have a grudge against teams that kicked them in the teeth in 1992, which of course includes Saints

You completely miss the point. You can sue to your hearts and wallets content. You will never win. As a Members Club they are a law unto themselves, precedents have been set several times when this has been attempted, the Law always finds in favour of the sporting body (members club). Always. I agree with you about Mawhinney, but its not about him, he has already made a fool of himself, but that won't change anything. I would like to see his expenses claims, sadly as he stood down as an MP in 2005 they are not published, redacted or otherwise.

Rupert Lowe