ringwood

hence why he's on the short(list) for managers

I've been today and bought 3 season tickets, never had one before, last season I attended away games until we hit the buffers then I started going, and now to usher in the new era i've put my money behind the new regime. So i'll be in the Northam , so come on Saints nows the teams job to make me sing loud n proud

it should defo be RINGWOOD ! on tap

he bought the assets which are listed as Subsidiaries Southampton Football Club Ltd; St Mary's SPV Ltd; St Mary's Stadium Ltd

yep be buying one for me and one for my daughter, mobiles been going mad with texts!

re the LSE 09:15 02-Jun-2009 SOO Exclusivity Agreement RNS 0.00% 11:25 15-May-2009 SOO Termination of talks RNS 0.00% 17:00 24-Apr-2009 SOO Update RNS 0.00% 15:39 02-Apr-2009 SOO Rule 2.10 Announcement RNS 0.00% 11:58 02-Apr-2009 SOO Appointment of Administrators RNS 0.00% 07:00 01-Apr-2009 Suspension - Southampton Leisure Holdings Plc RNS 0.00% 07:00 01-Apr-2009 SOO Suspension of Shares RNS 0.00% so as theres no mention of delisting I would assume that it will be necessary to inform them that shares are no longer available and an announcement that the company is no more and delisted?

will it be an LSE announcement first?

money in place tomorrow according to Solent

I sent the FL an email direct and received this reply Thank you for your email. Due to the volume of communications received a standard response is necessary. To clarify, the sporting sanction, i.e. points deduction has been made in accordance with League regulations, which are put in place by the clubs themselves – The League merely administers them. An appeal is allowed with a specified period. Sporting sanctions regulations were not introduced until 2004 and could not be applied to Clubs before that time. When a club suffers an insolvency event, e.g. administration, their share in The League is liable to be withdrawn under the terms of our Articles of Association. In other words their membership comes to an end. However, because we are in the business of trying to keep clubs alive, the Board operates a policy within the provisions of the Articles which suspends the withdrawal of a club’s share in order to give them a second chance – this is entirely in keeping with the law of the land. Recent arbitration proceedings confirm The Football League has the right to impose conditions on a company that sees to join The League in this way. These conditions reflect the need to protect the integrity of the competition by ensuring that no club should be able to gain an advantage over its rivals by not paying its debts. Owners of football clubs will change over time, but the ‘club’ remains the same. It is the club which secures a competitive advantage from wiping out debt through insolvency proceedings, and therefore, it is only right that it is the club, regardless as to the identity of the new owners, that is made subject to any conditions. The League has a responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season - we would also clarify that throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue.

looks like the FL have made a statement to the Echo http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4467910.Football_League_hit_out_at_Pinnacle/?action=thanks

I've emailed the FL May I ask in the interests of all Southampton Football Fans that the FL issue a statement which simply indicates the terms expected for a bidder to complete the purchase of SFC. There is much conjecture on the exact terms and whether it involves further penalties or license terms. There is currently much anger among the fanbase which is being aimed at bidders and the FL. A clear statement I feel would settle the matter, there is after all not only the fans but the employees of the SLH group of companies, also the creditors of the group of companies who would welcome clarity. Perhaps we should all mail the FL if only 50 % of the members online here did it then they would have an awful lot of people asking

look at the facts not the rumours you've all read on here we need to know whether the FL terms are correct and proper and the only way I can see that going forward is to get the FL to release the terms on their website then its all in the open and the mudslinging can begin

well the nda surely must of ended with the exclusivity, we really need to know what the FL terms are. surely the same terms will be applied to any other bidders? if the FL are so sure they are right then why arn't they publishing them?, by not doing so they are prolonging the administrators role, the club staff risk working for no pay next month when the players might well be free agents if club liquidated.

double post

Far better just to let it die than linger on, the AFC or whatever would have no real connection with the 124 year history, so my vote would be for the club to just dissolve and be remembered for what it was and not be a shadow. Let the name Southampton be remembered for Bates, Le Tiss, Channon, Osgood, Ball, Stokes, Holmes, Paine rather than a team pretending playing at the local recreation ground.

so wheres old red cheeks then? wheres Wilde ? wheres Askham? all culpable , wheres the Echo reporters hammering on their doors for answers? wheres the statement from the Football League, the best we can hope for it seems is a two minute slot on local TV, maybe a bit on SSN until the next prem transfer goes thru. Next will be the charm offensive from all off the above mentioned saying it wasn't me. So go on then how far back does the blame lie? and which of the above will break cover first?, personally I blame Askham for the whole PLC era

Devastated, I firmly believe its the PLC status that will finally kill off the club, and that its more that the 10 points that are the source of the 'legal wrangles' If the previous board had taken the points hit earlier when it was obvious or at least it should of been to the finance director that the money was about to run out then the picture would of been clearer but that water under the Itchen Bridge. Whether its money not in place or the fact that SFC can't satisfy the CVA requirements of the FL , the fact that the club is now disposing of players has to make the value of the purchase lower, just as if you bid for a car then discover the seller has removed the alloy wheels and tyres and not replaced them. I don't believe its a bargaining tactic, but now we need answers such as who put up the exclusivity money? what are the legal issues? was it the purchase of assets or the PLC the FL's terms? and can the club function as it is? do we take the further points penalty or does the club fold?

why would anyone sell the club for a £1, especially to someone like Lowe, who would have to borrow the money and that's where the problems started, ie borrowed money if the takeover is to happen I would think that the fact that SFC have just sold an asset worth £1m then the price for the SFC has dropped by the same amount. this will be another excuse to not complete as 'admin' have now moved the goalposts !!!

its ok 'cleaning the slate' but as time goes on there will be less players available for the new management to select either at the club or purchase/ loan. As I said before how can the administrator of a separate company be running SFC, if he is then is he responsible for the wages of SFC , indeed isn't Begbies actually responsible for all debts incurred whilst they are in charge? part of the reason companies appoint administrators I thought?

has not Fry always said that he's not admin for SFC but SLH, SFC does still have a board structure does it not? so if Fry is to maintain his SFC is not in admin then how can he sanction the sale of players? surely it has to be the SFC board?

Right theres seems to be a dispute as to whether LC paid the deposit last month, but one thing is clear thats that the deposit paid the wages for the staff Now amongst the previous board members now I include Lowe Wilde, Askham , Corbett, off course theres the finance director Jones who should have cash squirreled away oh and Wiseman etc its about time they put there hands in their pockets and at least paid this months wages for the staff. There was the £1000 club on the offical site but I reckon its time they paid their debts to the employees

The Swiss will have to buy SLH rather than assets of SLH If SLH is bought then yes the cost will likely be higher, but CVA not an issue. I'm sure all the legal arguments are over the imposition of corporate law by the FL against a company (SFC) which isn't in the eyes of corporate law in Admin and therefore can't conform with a request for a CVA based on Corporate law. That's a mess from the FL and their interpretation of their rules which don't follow the law of the country.

yes its about the lack of cva, the application of corporate law by the FL against SLH whereas corporate law says that SFC isn't in admin. if any bidder signs to agree the no appeal and therefore -10 they then agree that SFC is in admin, then that means we need a cva, which under corporate law we can't provide. the deal Imagine is structured to buy the assets of SLH. SFC can't pay the staff as it has no cashflow as because the league havn't granted a license it can't sell season tickets. SLH could have income from the stadium or whoever is using the land at Jacksons, SFC has no income as no games being played. If the Swiss are serious the only way forward is for them to take over SLH completely, that would satisfy the FL

as Fry has previously stated he's not running the football club as he's not appointed to SFC how can this be true???????????????????

I believe the legal bit is to do with the 10 points and the cva requirement how can the FL insist that the club is in admin which is not true under corporate law, and then insist that a document produced under corporate law is produced for the club? SFC have no way of admitting they are in admin and no way of producing a CVA, so by signing away the appeal the FL hope that SFC are admitting to admin and then they can add the extra deduction for not producing CVA. if the appeal is not allowed due to the appeal procedure ie over 7 days since judgement being applied then surely no need for the FL statement, they'd simply reject the appeal on those grounds and not even discuss it?.