Whitey Grandad

http://www.bovinebazaar.com/cowstuff2.htm

It should have gone oow.

A full house for the first game of the season.

This link from another thread say that Rotherham, Bournemouth & Luton all had the same sort of deal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8113850.stm

Something in the Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2494616/Le-Tissier-is-on-a-loser.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=Football Reiterates what we have been hearing.

Could it be a loan.......?

You could well be right. As I asked elsewhere, Leeds was a new company whereas SFC Ltd. would stay unchanged. Of course, the League make up the rules as they go along so they might well argue that what we would be doing would amount to 'substantially the same thing'.

This wouldn't be a new company, would it? SFC Ltd. would continues as the same legal entity.

What I cannot understand is the League's comment that it: 'has the responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season with certainty as regards the competition they compete in.' Surely no one is disputing that we start next season in league 1? (and it should say 'the competition in which they compete')

Can't be worse than last season.

They don't consider you important. Relax, it won't make any difference to the timescale. I've learnt not to get worked up about things I can't control.

Well put. This is a Kafkaesque situation where a club that enters administration will have an initial 10 point deduction with a right to appeal that decision. Any such club will almost certainly have new owners and the convention is that they must waive that right of appeal. So in practice, no appeal can ever be held.

Their own rules provide for them to be able to vary the rules.

FIN relax & tune in again on Tuesday.

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.