Whitey Grandad

Those were the rules to which all clubs agreed. Stockport's 'penalty' is non-existent which is presumably why they took the decision at that time. Our appeal is that those same rules specifically exclude the administration of a parent company from affecting a subsidiary club.

Or another 21 days of exclusivity.

Of course, silly me.

Because they stayed up without them. We managed to get relegated even without the 10 points so we get them next season. Please don't ask me why.

Tottenham got their deduction reduced to a slap on the wrist, different league though.

I think so, but if we had finished above third from bottom and then been relegated by the 10 points I expect the hassle would have been a lot greater.

What's the difference between writing off some debts and renegotiating you mortgage to a more advantageous rate?

As a probable buyer you would certainly want this cleared up before coughing up the dosh. How about: 'we'll sign that we accept the 10 points but we want a guarantee that there won't be any more to follow'?

The amount of benefit would depend on the deal that is agreed. If any new owner were to pick up where the previous had left off then there would have been no benefit. Plenty of clubs have found wealthy new backers which gave them an advantage but they were not penalised. As you say, these rules are antiquated and obsolete but we agreed to abide by them. The appeal would not be over their fairness but the correctness of their application.

Are you saying that legally he may not be able to sell a Football League club becuase he cannot guarantee that it would still be in the League?

Let me get this clear... The rules as agreed by all member clubs are that if a club goes into administration they may be deducted 10 points but they have a right of appeal, such right to be non-existent if said club finds a buyer? That would apply to every such situation.

Oh, I don't know. The same thing could happen again and again

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Contractually there is a fixed period of agreement but I'm sure that Fry has the best interest of the creditors at heart.

Quite probably, but our set-up predated their rules and if they are not appropriate then they should be changed through the proper procedures and not made up on the hoof..

He went out of his way to say so, which usually means that whoever said it expects an appeal to succeed. What possible reason can they have for insisting on a waiver of the 'Right to Appeal'? What would they have to lose?

Exactly. So why has he not cleared this up before now?

But the rules that you agree to abide to include a right to appeal. The League are now being selective about which rules apply and which do not. Why not simply allow an appeal? There must be more to this than meets the eye.

I would argue that our case was different (I would, wouldn't I?) in that the approval of the League is conditional on a 'no appeal' agreement What is more relevant is why the League care whether we appeal or not. They could simply leave the matter to another day and let the appeal committee make the decision. Why do they feel the need to apply a 'no appeal' clause?

Maybe (and lose £500k), but that is their decision for them to make.

Why? SFC can pay a rent to anybody who provides an acceptable stadium in which to play. It has happened may times before - Charlton and Wimbledon spring to mind.

These are all fair points, but you would expect a prospective new owner to use all means to maximise the potential return on their investment. If that means waiting until Monday afternoon, then it may be a worthwhile tactic.

SFC is solvent if its owner provides financial support. If the present owner cannot do so then they can pass that 'asset' to someone who can. In fact, Fry has a legal duty to do so in order to maximise the benefits to the original owner's creditors.

If it's under duress then a contract is normally unenforceable.

On what grounds? SFC would carry on unchanged. On that basis Man Utd and Liverpool and all the others would have been thrown out of the PL when they changed ownership.