SaintBobby

I think (and hope) that this is a good summary. Fry and Pinnacle would have received very good legal advice on all of this - and probably much better and more extensive legal advice than the FL has seen fit to pay for (after all, this is not a life and death matter for the Football League, but it is for us). Procedurally, I suspect it's the FL who are in a mess - but tactically, we are now days away from extinction and they aren't...

I'm not at all sure this is right. Firstly, it strikes me that Pinnacle may have a case for an injunction. They can argue that their business plan is being held up - or even destroyed - by the Football League. It's not at all clear that SLH are the only plaintiffs here. By way of example, if I'm about the buy up a local restaurant or bar from a compnay in administartion and the municipal authority arbitarily and unreasonably prevents me from doing so at the last minute, I may have a case in law against the local authority. You are right that injunctions requiring "specific performance" are rare. Usually courts would lean against an injunction on these grounds and rely on the matter going to damages. E.g. if I book Elton John to play a gig and at the last minute he says "I can't be bothered to turn up", it is unlikely that I can get an injunction forcing him to perform, I'd have to sue him for damages. BUT... the SLH/SFC/FL situation seems to be case where an injunction requiring specific performance MIGHT be appropriate. This is because (a) the burden on the FL to comply with the specific performance sought is very limited (i.e. they need to allow us to compete in League One and let the -10 issue go to a tribunal, hardly a great burden on their part...probably requires Mawhinney's signature on two pieecs of paper), (b) the damages suffered by Pinnacle/SLH/SFC are both difficult to quantify and potentially enormous (e.g. we were intending to sell season tickets from Monday and anticipated a £2m revenue by the end of July....we believe we could run this outfit at a £1m profit per annum in perpetuity etc etc), and - just possibly - © the public interest is served by specific performance in this instance. The case is therefore very easy to distinguish from your example of seeking an injunction against a golf club on the basis of their treatment of your handicap.

I doubt that. They'd need to show what their losses actually were. Given they ahd no chance of recouping the £30m, the FL would only have cost them whatever the Pinnacle settlement would have been (say, £8m to Norwich Union, £2m to Barclays?) Anyway, am still hoping it doesn't come to that!

Really good analysis. Nail on the head.

Cretin. It doesn't show the danger of anything. That post has had nothing to do with the problems the takeover bid has hit. You are also completely wrong re: your abject misunderstanding of the Football League rules. I'm glad that people can post new threads so easily. It continuely reminds me of how utterly f**kwitted some people are, and makes me feel more secure about my own relatively high IQ. What a moron.

Am hoping these matters can be resolved. Football League being intransigent, but won't let us go to the wall over it in the face of legal advice (if that's what we have)

If only it were that simple. What seems to be at stake is that the way the takeover happens will have a substantial evidential impact on any appeal over the points penalty. The two matters can't be easily divorced. FWIW, I think we deserve the ten point penalty, but should still fight it. If the legal advice is that the FL are on shaky ground, then sock it to the FL. It's naked self-interest, but so what? We're not here to be fair, but to fight for our interests.

SSN: exclusivity period expired at 5pm. Other bidders can now enter the fray. The bid is in serious jeopardy. FL meets on Monday afternoon, emergency meeting, to resolve the matter. Pinnacle say "extremely frustrated, some legal matters outstanding - not least the FL's position on SLH and SFC." As it stands, MLT may not come to the club at all. Fry will talk with Pinnacle and other bidders over the weekend.

My (optimistic) analysis is that Pinnacle, Mark Fry and SFC are on solid ground here. (This is partly based on the view that the FL are a total shower, so in any dispute are probably in the wrong) The football club has continued to trade - has met its bills etc. SLH is now being liquidated and SFC will continue, this drives a coach and horses through the League's case that SFC are SLH are basically indivisible. I can't see how the League can object to a division of SLH's assets. How can they insist that if you want to buy the football club, you have to buy Jackson's Farm too?

SSN update: New company to be set up by Pinnacle to take on SFC as a "going concern", but not other SLH assets. SLH has gone into liquidation/administration/to the wall. Hold up is Football League who may "end up with egg on their face" over the ten point penalty. "All is not lost for Saints fans"

http://twitter.com/dailyecho

Daily Echo scotch rumour of a 7pm press release. No such schedule exists.

SSN reporter "it's like buying or selling a house...it doesn't happen" !!!! :-( Also reports if deal goes through Pinnacle will launch legal action to try and expunge the 10 point penalty.

hmmm...looking that way.....still a modicum of time left though....

The snag being it was NEVER scheduled. Cretin.

did they tell you that at the 12.30pm press cofnerence or the 2.30pm press conference?

Maybe...but if we don't finish by close of play, why not assume it drags on till Monday. Is today's deadline 5pm/close of business or midnight?

if you believe the ITKs, you are often going to be disappointed....

Mike seemed to assert that Keegan made his name "down here in the 1980s". KK being England captain and European footballer of the year prior to signing for Saints must have passed Mike by....

Football League holding up the deal.

I don't know. But interesting theory. If SLH's assets are being split in different directions, it might help "prove" that SFC and SLH are not as connected as the FL assert,

I can't see how the FL can stop an appeal, but am not sure that's the issue. I don't pretend to understand the technicalties, but would guess that the paperwork we have lodged with the league would aid or assist our appeal if the FL sign it off.

Nice thought, but I think sympathy from others will be thin on the ground. Firstly, a successful appeal may mean we get promoted in place of another team. Secondly, we will be seen to have "got off" on a technicality (not unreasonably so)

Can the FL do this? I would have thought there are certain things they need to check re: fit and proper persons test. But can they block the takeover just because they don't like our intention to appeal or disagree with the new owners re: the legality of the points deduction? I'd say Pinnacle should hold firm. Even if this means the press conference being "pushed back" to Monday. Other than the frustration for all of us, does it matter if the final closure on the deal is shortly after the expiration of the exclusivity period? I doubt Marc Jackson will come up with a more credible offer than Pinnacle between now and Monday. Although I guess he will probably make a total t*t of himself by trying...

Gary Cotterill - the SSN reporter - did say that the hold-up was based around the new owners seeking to extricate the club from the points deduction and that this was detailed and technical (and he wouldn't go into the full detail because it was complex business techno babble). Mark Fry has, however, phoned the reporter to say he remains confident that the deal will be completed today. At a (total) guess, I'm assuming the paper work sent to the Football Laegue says something along the lines of "Southampton Football Club, which is and has always been a going concern, is to be tranferred to Pinnacle's ownership. Southampton Leisure Holdings, who have gone into administration, have had their assets split in the following ways. Blah blah blah" Presumably, a sign off on such paperwork by the FL coudl aid an appeal on the points deduction.