up and away

I agree with FF's view on Matty, Listening to that interview where he states he did everything possible limits his abilities, that it makes me wonder. I was well aware from the beginning that he was not going to add much more than hope, but I would at least expect to own up in some small manner for what he has been part of. That said, such is everything he has done for us in the past I could not hold any form of grudge or ill will towards the guy because of everything he has done for us previously. I am disappointed in him but that will more than likely be gone tomorrow.

FF, I hear everything you say and know you are far better placed than most on here to comment, but i still can't get my head around the money paid to date. Jackson, Fulthorpe, Tommac etc never parted with a penny.......... this lot did and a very significant amount at that. As i said, i'm not saying you are wrong............. it just doesn't make any sense I can easily see how this came about and I firmly believe Tony started off with good intentions, then circumstances getting the better of him and acting upon hope or a promise as if it was nailed on. I have no doubt he has wasted a significant amount of his own money, along with that of Crouch. But there came a point where he continued and made himself a right thwat and his attitude to this adversity labels him as deserving everything coming his way. Just as Wilde nailed everything upon a promise, you can easily envisage the same happening here and everything getting out of hand. As for MLT, we all knew his business acumen from the beginning and obviously from what FF has said, the pressure has definitely got to him. As for Crouch, his possible involvement can only be seen as detrimental if he facilitated the exclusion period for Pinnacle in some manner, at the cost of another party coming in. Maybe the Swiss would have had time to negotaiate an acceptable p/£ on the debts within that period but we do not know that. Either way it is a continual theme. The best I can see coming out of this is renting the stadium, players and assets sold off and starting next season on -25 points. Possibility of the Swiss, but that has to be remote. I would even take that now, when I consider the alternative.

Well from my employee source at Sky, he expects MLT to sign a new contract by the end of the week.

Time to press the bell and get them to come and empty your pants. The mighty Mac who was going to Notts County to guarantee first team football?

I don't agree with that, it is exactly the same if it were any club in the FL. The complexities have been rationalised when the FL made it's decision as to SFC being in administration, so it now becomes a standard issue for applying the rules There is no issue here. On all parts of the debt against SLH you come to an agreement with 75% of the creditors and the rest have to take the same deal. The FL has already defined SFC as being the same entity as far as the administration rules are concerned. So any CVA has to be upon the basis of SLH, not SFC. The management board for SLH is the administrator. SLH still exists but under administration and would only cease to exist once administration is over. How are Pinnacle negotiating the best deal for the club, unless you are inferring to any borrowing to finance the deal? There will be no change from the FL, so at the end of the day what have you gained and what have you put in jeopardy? The FL are on thin ice? more like atop the Cairngorms on several thousand feet of granite. This all has a romantic appeal about it, but the last few days has made me believe that I would prefer one of Alan Sugars apprentices. Someone who has at least got a chance of being able to address the issues. The Pinnacle bid has made it very difficult for the Swiss bid to be considered because of the timing. And if Pinnacle fail to complete, it is difficult to see how a further 15 point deduction will not be applied.

I am still hoping against hope that Pinnacle do complete but the reaction of late to Pinnacle is solely based upon the points you outline. This is brought about by Pinnacle and not a case of small inconsistencies. There are people who make a living from negotiating and dealing with the FL, who would had any issues sorted prior to the end of exclusivity. Take every valid point and statement and place this before any knowledgeable independent FL fan , does anyone believe their conclusions would be anything other than about finance?

You have been correct all along regarding Pinnacle, but I am still hoping against any logic that they manage to complete, exactly as I was with Wilde. Even if pinnacle do come good, the very fact they were prepared to risk all only underlines your points. All the signs were there but I could see no point in being negative towards them until they allowed the exclusion period to pass with lame excuses. Having MLT and Crouch involved, coming on here, not really the recipe for a sound business start for someone with £M100's? The problem with Fry is that he can do nothing else within the time he has remaining. He has to place the ultimatum or liquidate, that is the nature of the beast and he would be culpable if he did anything else. Where he has been grossly culpable is the promotion of the position that the FL were incorrect in applying the 10 point deduction. What should have happened with either Fry or Tony Lynham is to have got the services of Krasner involved, as they did at Bournemouth. He seems to make a living out of such consultancies and the cost would not have been exorbitant for a couple of days work. We may be very lucky with the Swiss but it is a very big ask in such a short space of time. As daft as it sounds, our best chance may still lie with Pinnacle but that is just a reflection of our chances than anything else. Too many people got carried away with the situation and that is a major down side to being a fan involved with issues such as these.

So when they said the goalposts were changed last Thursday do you think they were lying? Why does everyone want to believe that the nasty FL are picking on Saints. This is no different to any other similar FL decision and if you were to ask any other of the FL chairman regarding the situation you would not find one disagreeing. The goal posts were never changed, just laid out as per standard FL regulations and how they are interpreted. Just because some lawyer reckoned you could interpret Rugby posts for the same purpose just does not hold water. We have seen so may of these decisions in the past and I cannot believe any of you would have an issue with this if it were another club, infact vociferously the opposite. The FL within their remit decided that for all practical purposes, SLH was SFC and should be treated as such for any application of the administration rules. They are perfectly entitled to do this and furthermore, it is entirely correct and morally justified. Once you have defined as such, it then follows that any CVA required will have to be effectively for SLH whether it is delisted or what ever. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot show the CVA based upon the debts of SLH and as such the FL cannot argue otherwise, because they have already made that link. If you try and forward a CVA based upon the debts of SFC then that is never going to wash and you would rightly be penalised further. The administrator has flucked up big time in forwarding this notion that SFC is not in administration along with several lawyers. That is totally dumb when you consider how the FL works. Just because you are getting fed pieces on a stick by people you want to believe, tell you is marshmallow, best to actually use your own senses unless you are prepared for the after taste.

So again everything points toward the FA being the problem, MLT has said so, TL has said so, Fry has said so and my mum has repeated it, I think it is safe to say by now that the arguement is not re -10 but leaving themselves open to -25 without the right to appeal. Are the Swiss or A N Other gonna accept that 'deal' just to own the club ? Will Saltz's group take on the poison chalice knowing they will not be accountable when we are in league two for the 10/11 season and build up from there ? Chancers don't throw this kind of money around, do they ? The only people making up the -25 points are on here, no on else, not even Pinnacle. You don't **** away £1M of your own money over a minor point that should be restricted to the under 12's debating society. There is no issue over the point deduction, there is a big issue in the finance. Fry has a lot to blame in laying out front the 10 point deduction and how it should be appealed. Pinnacle are now using this as their get out clause and it looks near solid from everything that has been said. There are a couple of ways this could of been avoided, 1) By MLT getting concorde into the nitty gritty and doing what any proper chairman or front man would have seen as essential. 2) If Crouch provided financial support for the exclusivity period he should have found out exactly what his actions were developing. Any idiot could work out if a multi millionaire required his 2 pence to get things off the ground, odds on you were buying a pup. Because if that financial support was removed it would be doubtful the exclusivity would have gone ahead.

Oh my dear God so it's Crouch's fault that we are where we are is it? You really do take the biscuit. How about asking your own God Rupert if he'd like to help the Club out of the sorry mess he is partly responsible for. WTF does Lowe come into this? I am pretty sure Crouch put money in, why else would he be invited on the board? I cannot remember when the official date required for being out of administration and having an agreed CVA is? But if all of this results in us not having enough time to sort the CVA out in time and are then starting the season on -25 points, exactly how would you feel then? Especially if we could have avoided the CVA altogether? It does not matter how good your intentions are, that when you end up doing the opposite to what is intended, you are best not saying or doing anything without an adult present. How many time does anyone have to keep going down on the wish genie before results indicate it is a personal choice or dumb enough to know no better? I can easily see Fulthorpe getting resurrected again or one of the ocean going liners being touted as significant!

I was refraining from putting up something similar. Reading some the friggin stupid comments on here have made me cringe. When we were in the prem, we had Lowe, in the CC we had Wilde, and neither had a pot to **** in and never put any money into the club. This guy turns up and looking at company reports has sold just one of his companies for £39m and might just save us and he is the ****ing antichrist! So when will people be happy? Paul Allen as Moneyman Jose as Manager and Ronaldo as first signing We are a league one team now! and might not be if this doesnt get sorted unless he turns out to be some sort of Knighton If you can explain why anyone in their right mind, who was totally serious about buying Saints, would put it all in jeopardy over a minor point that has absolutely no practical chance of success, then you have a point? You do not go this far then allow someone else the opportunity of stepping in if you are serious! Something is very wrong here and we are just hoping that it goes through, but the possible ramifications of the deal breaking down could easily be the liquidation of Saints. I am no fan of Jackson and understand exactly what he represents, but at the present time the current logic makes it very hard to differentiate. The vast majority of sensible fans would be absolutely delighted to start on -10 points, no debts and all our facilities, forget about investment in the team or Keegan. But someone has stoked up the muppets with talk of Keegan and a 5 year premier plan. When we wasted £40M over the last couple of years in delivering ourselves to this position, where were the protestations then?

Exactly, but it does appear Fry may have ****ed up here. In forwarding the position that what the FL was doing to be wrong, there could be grounds for Pinnacle to walk away with their exclusivity payment, though I would have doubted that for someone experienced. I don't for one minute believe that Tony is any form of a fraud, but things can get out of hand when cobbled together at the last minute. The fact we have now arrived at this position does show the seriousness of the position and Pinnacle prepared to walk away for what ever reason. Where are the FL running anything in breach of the law, this is an absolute fallacy. There is only one possibility and that would be a forced agreement based upon duress. To fight that case you would first have to join the FL then go to court. You have now committed all the funds to SFC and what can you possibly gain or lose? There is no way a court will rule against the 10 point penalty and you now have the possibility of being thrown out of the FL for taking such action or costs for both parties. Why would anyone in their right minds take such a risk?

Unbelievable! We are in Buster Gonads territory here with the amount of bullocks going about. There will be only be a -10 point deduction if Pinnacle produce a CVA for SLH. If we don't produce a CVA for SLH we will be subjected to further penalties already laid out. The FL have already defined that, Tony has never argued otherwise. There is no way this is being driven by Tony, he would never have the authority to go against the money. So why is the money making such a big issue of this? either trying to back out or stubborn enough not to care, either way it does not bode well the longer it goes on. As it is now possible for any other bidder to plonk down the money for an exclusivity deal, no one serious would allow that position to arise. This looks like a deal fudged together at the last minute with conditions not being able to be kept or someone getting cold feet? Why else would you risk losing everything you have worked so far for? As for all this legal excuses, it's totally ridiculous. We are not even in the FL unless we agree to their conditions, we are perfectly free not to join. If we join this members club we have to abide by their rules. I can see the point that we could argue this in court because the agreement was signed under duress, but what exactly would we get out of it? The FL could actually break up and reform as another members body, where would we be then? We are suffering because we went into administration, something that is totally our fault and as such must pay the consequences of such action. No one can even put up an articulate case that we do not deserve the 10 point deduction, all anyone has put forward are the semantics of the situation, even though we are as guilty as sin. Theoretically we have a strong point, practically and morally we have or do not deserve a cat in hells chance of avoiding the 10 point penalty.

There is no doubt that the current impasse with the FL is at the behest of the main man, so from that side, it does fit in. But we have not heard one squeak previously from the main man so why should this change now? What would fit in is the involvement of Crouch and Lynham for the main man to back the deal. Maybe the main man has not released a penny as yet until conditions promised are met? Even if you are a fan of Crouch, what can he actually bring to the deal which any mega monger would want? Certainly not going to be his analytical skills and diplomacy for dealing with the FL as we have already witnessed. His only value would be the small amount of finance he can bring in the beginning for setting the whole deal up, I can see of no other need. The question I would like to know is how much money has the main man committed to this point? Because if Crouch and Lynham have bank rolled everything to date, then that it is very worrying.

In my eyes what ever happened with Matty would not change my opinion of him. The very last of a dying breed and more importantly he was one of ours. That said I do not hold out any greater hope just because Matty is involved or that his participation guarantees anything. He has been around the edges of some favours for "friends" that I would not go near with a barge pole.

All very strange and it leads to alot of the other posts wondering exactly what is going on behind the scenes? I am not going to get into all the other threads from GM and FF, even though they have valid points. But this just adds to the wonder, what exactly is happening? We went into administration and managed to bypass theoretically as much as £15M of debt. There is no way on God's green earth that we will escape a -10 point penalty from the FL, especially allowing for the latitude they have within their constitution for dealing with such matters. The CVA is not an issue as the FL has already defined SLH and SFC as being in effect one body, all that is required is the CVA's for SLH and we have fully met the requirements. The only area where we have the slimmest of chances is if the FL badly advised us prior to the administration cut off point in March, that SFC would not be deducted 10 points if SLH went into administration. Now legally that would be a very big issue but looking at it from the FL's point of view it would come down to, what actual evidence do you have that SFC would have gone voluntarily into administration? When you look at Lowe and Wilde's position at the time, their only chance was to hang on and hope to come out the other side. You could well argue that there may be room for discussion because we may have been denied that option but when you consider what we have got away with, can you see any other chairman in the FL wanting to even entertain this notion? I fully agree that our right to appeal should still exist but our practical chances of being able to do so are so slim it is difficult to conceive where to place the first integer after 0.0%. Theoretically there is a good point, practically you wonder WTFIGO. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, nor do they come out into the open to be readily picked off, no matter how solid a case a bucket load of lawyers tell you otherwise. Tony Lynham sounds an intelligent and sensible person, so I can only assume he has taken all this on board, safe in the knowledge that absolutely no harm can come from the action he is taking however remote the chance of success. I can easily go along with that, but that none the less does not stop the nerves from jangling like Chinese chimes in a typhoon!

I cannot see that as being a problem at all. We need to have an agreement of 75% of the value from creditors of SLH and we have fufilled our obligations. The FL has agreed in principle that in all essence SLH represents SFC, so should we show an agreed CVA for SLH there is no issue. I am disappointed we never got the right of appeal over the -10 ponts, even though I feel it was more than justified. It does seem unfair that we are not allowed the exact same rights of other clubs but at the end of the day it is hardly a shock and virtually nailed on what ever our protestations.

This is absolute ******. For this to be the case, they must have acted against their rules and constitution, but everything they have done is within that framework. Just because the FL have deviated from one rule / guideline in their constitution is not a justifiable case, they have done many such things in the past in the pursuit of equity and fairness. This is just the way the FL is constructed. You would then be arguing the case that what the FL did was not fair and you are now in Douglas Bader territory. If this case was presented to court I doubt it would go ahead with the whole thing getting referred to the Sports arbitration panel (which is exactly where you end up with the FL), something that was specifically designed because of such problems and the difference for sporting and company bodies. You would need a clear case of corruption or one of the human rights rules to get this to court, something that is clearly absent. The reason why the FL are desperate to have this sorted as soon as possible is because of the effect the 10 points can have on league positions. They cannot afford this dragging on such that you are going into a relegation / promotion position where you do not know what the outcome will be due to these 10 points, that would be terrible for all parties. Any lawyer would look at the case and more than likely tell the client they have a very good case. Ask any one of them to take this up on a no win - no fee basis and you will still be waiting for them to get back to you. In the eyes of any lawyer this looks a nailed on case, go back through the case histories for similar such events and the results show completely the opposite. Sheffield Utd are the only club I can think of in recent years that have managed to over turn such an action and that never got to court but arbitration. Sheffield Utd had the benefit of being morally right, we do not even have that luxury.

This was not the financial pinch coming in from a world financial down turn, this was gross financial mismanagement of a stupendous order. We ****ed away around £40M over a couple of years in excess of other clubs revenue streams. The whole concept of the FL administration rules is that clubs cannot get an unfair advantage by shedding all their debts. Even though we have agreed CVA's for SLH, we have manged to bypass £5M (est, maybe far more) of debt. Why, because what we agreed to pay off was nowhere near the full amount owed. If you wanted to make this fair for every other club you would have to give them something in the order of that £5M each. That is not feasible but applying a 10 point deduction is, though in many cases clubs would readily do this swap if they knew for certain they could get £5M for 10 points. If we come out of this debt free and a 10 point deduction, that is a massive leap forward from our previous position and gives us real hope for the future that we could never of imagined. I am pretty sure this will all be sorted very soon with Saints having a 10 point deduction but maybe having the right of appeal by the FL process, that would be the best we could hope for. Even if we fail to avoid the 10 point deduction, no Saints fan can say that is not fair when you consider what we have exchanged for that.

I am not sure Saints will actually be represented at this meeting! But if they were to go through the proposed board members and find Crouch's name there, you could excuse them for taking this as kosher and proceed accordingly. Even if someone says it is incorrect they may well feel it applicable for saying something so dumb! Leeds went through the FL appeals procedure, they never contested it in open court! http://www.ciderspace.co.uk/ASP/news/news.asp?NewsItemId=9539 This piece actually sounds if they know what they are on about, but time will tell. If this is the case it is just a minor point that should be all sorted by Tuesday.

If their case is so water tight as you suggest, why are they (FL) so bothered about Pinnacle agreeing not to appeal? Why not let Pinnacle (or by then SFC) have their day in court, win the case and have their costs met? It is just the way the FL works as has been explained in the posts above. There will be no court, it will be the FL appeal process or nothing. I could see one of the creditors taking the FL to court if SLH had not fulfilled their CVA and the club was allowed to escape this. This could be as minor a matter as Saints having the right of appeal to the FL, time will tell. The problem arises because we have to effectively rejoin the FL and in doing so sign up to all their regulations from this point in time. It is obviously something out of the norm or the FL would not have rushed through an emergency meeting for Monday. What concerns me is some statements from outside of Pinnacle stating lawyers opinions that we have a cast iron case. With the case of sporting bodies or probate, I would not believe a word from them unless they were prepared to proceed on a no win, no fee basis. Even if we were to sign away our rights of appeal in any court, I doubt that would stand up to scrutiny when the agreement would have been made under duress.

Not necessarily. What Crouch meant to say was that the structure was set up to avoid the football club having a penalty if SLH got into financial trouble. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable and (so far) successful arrangement and Mahwhinney is at best straw clutching. No one can interpret what Crouch meant to say, not even the idiot himself. Seeing as everything was set up at Saints years prior to these regulations even being touted, Lowe must of had crystal balls that Buster Gonads would have cast envious glances at. Where does anyone get the idea that the FL have done anything illegal or against their own rules? Everything they have done so far is perfectly acceptable within their structure and the only peron in the league that would argue with that is Saints?

There will be no compromise from the FL, we have absolutely no influence that we can bring to bear upon them. At the present time we are technically not in the FL and unless we sign up to abide by their rules and appeal process, that will remain the case. There seems to be a major issue that Pinnacle are concerned about, what I can only guess but doubt it to be to the original -10 point deduction. As others have suggested it could well be the agreement for the CVA. Because all the debts were placed upon SLH it could well be the insistence that the CVA has to be agreed for SLH, not just the club. The FL has a clear mandate that a club shall not profit at the expense of other clubs by going into administration. They have certain rules regarding this and they can as seen, add / interpret those rules within their framework to adapt to irregularities not originally envisaged. The only possible recourse I can see is if the FL told us there would be no points deduction prior to the March deadline for SLH going into administration. That would be something that we would be able to appeal but no guarantee of the outcome. Lawyers may well look at the regulations for sporting bodies and claim there is a cast iron case but in reality the judicial system is very reluctant to step into this arena, especially when the teams are actually running themselves and for an issue they hold the moral high ground. Just imagine you brought a successful prosecution against such a body, what would be the outcome? They could just easily refuse and fold leaving the successful applicant with no where to go? Very likely the teams would then reform under another umbrella and we may have the remote possibility of joining that league, but under their rules which we would have absolutely no redress to now. I would be delighted if Saints managed to escape without any punishment, but if we are penalised for administration or further CVA deductions, it will be because it is warranted and not the FL being the bogey man.

One thing missing here is that the creditors gave the club time to pay, and the agreed debts will be paid. The club, whatever the league try to say, traded legally and never went into administration. The lawyers have dissected the league's rules and have come to the conclusion that the league is wrong. I would be happy to come out of this with no points deduction, irrespective of the right or wrong and how we are viewed by other clubs, but it is just not going to happen on this basis. As soon as SLH went onto administration, that protective umbrella extended around the club. Our assets could not just be sold off or broken up because we were under the protection afforded us by administration. As such there is no doubt that we have benefited significantly from this action and will have to suffer the FL's penalty for such action. There is absolutely nothing that stops the FL from taking such action and we can go through their procedures for redress. If this were a case of company law or a civil matter you could be very confident upon the lawyers getting it correct, but I would not extend that to the rules governing sporting bodies, where the intention is to provide a level and fair playing field for all teams. I am getting increasingly concerned regarding the whole bid with Keegan's (non managerial) involvement, Crouch etc. Just why would someone so rich be ****ing about in such a manner? Added to that the regard to the 10 point deduction appears very amateurish or desperate for what ever reason. I would settle now for just having all the debts written off and the club in existence, I just hope we are afforded that opportunity!

That's very interesting, but on that basis I cannot see the FL are on dodgy ground. The nub of the 10 point deduction is because the club could no longer effectively pay their bills. If you were to take the FL rules as a basis for trade between companies I could understand, but this is for the equitable running of a sporting body. We are no different to any other club that has gone into administration but for the exception of name only, on that basis we deserve the 10 point deduction. I really doubt the courts would rule against a sporting body for taking such action when we are as guilty as sin, but not in name. I could fully understanding the club having a very strong case if the FL informed us we would suffer no deduction for SLH going into administration prior to the deadline. The rules of a sporting body such as the FL are based upon the members having a fair and level playing field. I cannot see a court interfering in those issues when they have been doing excatly that. It could be a far different case if we were innocent!