Whitey Grandad

I keep thinking back to the comments made at the time of administration to the effect that the club/SLH had queried with the League the situation regarding the separation of the two companies and had been assured that administration of SLH would not result in sanctions against the club. Might this be the basis for an appeal? I do agree though that it is all likely to be a waste of time because the Board of the League has wide-reaching powers to do as it sees fit.

To me, 300m would only be 'a few hundred'. Several would be more that 500m'

I would expect to see something along the lines: ...special cicrumstances ...the 10 point deduction stands ...rules will be clarified to avoid future uncertainty and so on.

Indeed they do. However, in our case the basis for the decision was that the two entities were 'inextricably linked' and even that could not be readily determined at the time. It was Mawhinney's statement "there is an appeal mechanism and the club is free to use it" that indicates to me that this decision was more political than practical. He clearly expected us to follow that route.

Absolutely. The board can and will do as it sees fit. Things have obviously reached a stage where they cannot proceed without clarification or ratification from the League and hence the emergency meeting. Nothing much can happen until they have met and decided.

Precisely. What other reason could there be for an 'emergency' meeting?

The 10 points are for starters. More follow after depending on how the club exits administration - see Luton & Bournemouth for examples.

I really should get out more

I think that most people would settle for -10 points but it's the threat of further deductions that gives us all the willies. Clearly the decision must be partly political because asking prospective new owners to sign a waiver is not written anywhere in the League rules and must be a discretionary move on the part of the board or its chairman.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=336671&postcount=166

The PLC setup predates the rules by a considerable period.

Or 'let's call it £80,000 but you have to pay it back at a higher rate of interest and there are punitive early-repayment conditions'. Debts are restructured all the time, revalued, swapped for equity, sold off to collection agencies at vastly reduced levels, anything to get at least something back rather than nothing.

"Look, I've moved the goalposts again"

Players are dumped by clubs when they are surplus to requirements and they have short careers in relation to most professions. They have families and mortgages like most other people, even if is is on a different scale. They are commodities to be traded or sold. Most people on here would walk to another employer for a sizeable pay rise.

I would wait until after Monday before protesting too much. It may not be as simple as 'accepting 10 points and moving on'.

The time to full repayment of the mortgage can be the same with different capital debts and repayment terms, it's all a question of how the agreement is structured. If one of my customers comes to me and says 'I've got a bit of a problem at the moment, can I pay you half of what I owe you but I'll make it up sometime in the future' then I have to give it careful consideration. Regarding the interactions between the separate companies, I bow to your superior knowledge. Clearly this cannot be self-evident or there would not be all this legal discusion and the FL board would not have needed to call in auditors?

In time, the net effect is the same. This comes down to the essence of the arrangements between the corporate bodies. SFC does not own the stadium and never has, presumably paying a charge for its use. The stadium is owned by a separate company, itself owned by SLH. From what I have read, the stadium company is viable and profitable in its own right. The debts and liabilities of the stadium comany are not related so SFC who could choose to play in any approved stadium, as has happened with many other clubs. It is therefore a matter of the other creditors and the money owed to them. If SFC has always paid the commercial rate for services provided by SLH companies and others then there has been no cross-subsidy and SFC has the option to obtain those services from alternative sources. SFC is short of liquidity but is not in administration and could raise cash from sales of season tickets, or from a financial backer.

If the Football league board decision goes against us on Monday, can we appeal?

I see it like this: everything is agreed but the parties need clarification / guarantees from The Football League which require an emergency meeting for ratification. That could not be held yesterday or today so Monday it will have to be. have a good weekend folks, see you all again next week!

Life's not fair. I remember when Tottenham had the 12 point deduction imposed, stewards at the club were saying that they wouldn't stick. As somebody else said "They wouldn't have the balls"

Merely a question of degree, not principle.

Wait until Monday night.

They don't need to. The 10 points is just the start. The others may be applied depending on how we come out of administration, not that we are in it, technically.

Who's 'we'?

Just maybe, the holdup is over the possible imposition of further deductions?