Whitey Grandad

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.

The 10 point deduction was incorrectly applied. The holding company was a separate legal entity, the club is a completely separate beast. In no way were they 'inextricably linked' or they would both stand or fold together. Morally or legally we should not have a deduction, but technically we have to abide by the rules of the constitution of the Football League, and those rules provide for an appeal. Therefore we have the right, under those rules, to appeal. The 10 point deduction is a separate matter from the takeover and should be left to the appeal board. It should not be inextricably linked to approval of the takeover.

I should have thought that a 'not to challenge' clause could amount to an illegal contract. If SFC has, of today, a right to appeal then it cannot sign away that right. SFC will continue to exist as a corporate body in its original form and with the same financial commitments but with new backers. The League under its constitution cannot take away that right of appeal, otherwise the said right of appeal would be conditional on the ruling body's approval. I would expect some decision along the lines of 'having examined in more detail the particulars of the proposed takeover, the board is now satisfied that at no time ... ... no advantage was obtained... etc.' Anything else would surely lay them open to massive legal claims from one side of the deal or the other.

Either there is a right to appeal or there isn't. No organisation can be selective over who is allowed to appeal and under what circumstances. If the constitution of the Football League allows for an appeal (as it must) then it cannot allow for the controlling board to choose who is allowed to appeal and who is not. This must be sorted out and quickly. The League have got themselves into a right mess way over their heads. Quite clearly SLH and SFC cannot be considered to be 'inextricably linked' if one can go bust and fold and the other can carry on with new backing with all liabilities covered.

Indeed. One doesn't pay off the previous mortgage when one buys a house, one simply takes out a new one.

I wasn't impressed by him but he handled a difficult situation with dignity and his heart was in the right place. Good luck to him in his new job.

For some of us it seems like yesterday.

It's not Mourinho is it? Nobody seems to have mentioned Denis Wise???

They can't be worse than what we had this year, surely?

I seem to remember a period when there was a play-off between the two divisions to determine whether the team third from bottom should stay or be relegated. Weren't we relegated under McMenemy because that was the season that the number of teams relegated/promoted was increased?

Is there any news about an appeal?

I'd settle for that. (Not that I have any influence in the matter).