Whitey Grandad

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?

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?