Rational Rich

But Len, it does. "...the Board concluded that an administrator had been appointed in respect of the Club or part of its undertaking or assets". The only bit an administrator has been appointed over is SLH, which is not an asset or undertaking of SFC. Also, the economic entity argument doesn't work as a matter of company law, where each company is its own legal entity (I won't bore you with the theory). The league are plainly wrong on this one, and from the adminstrator's statement, it looks like the advice they are getting is the same. I've been chatting to other colleagues, some of whom are insolvency experts, and no-one can understand the decision from a legal perspective.

GM, I used to work for an administrator. I have a clue. Provided the legal costs don't outweigh the difference to the value of the asset and there is a decent liklihood of success, he will have to challenge it, especially if the case is as strong as it appears. It will come down to the costs of challenging against what stands to be lost by not challenging. Can't imagine the fees would be that massive. Anyway, that's his call, he has the facts and figures to make the commercial decision, I don't.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/ChampionshipNewsDetail/0,,10794~1636735,00.html I've just read the rationale on the league website and it makes no sense from a legal perspective. SLH (the only bit where an administrator has been appointed) is in no way an asset or an undertaking of SFC, SFC is an asset/undertaking of SLH. The FL have made a perverse decision on the facts. The administrators should and almost certainly will challenge this, as it will materially affect the value of SLH's main asset and, as such, the return to creditors. This is by no means over.

Spot on, this is a stupid decision as it will just lead to litigation (at the cost of the creditors), uncertainty, etc. Will be interesting to see the basis on which they think they can do this.

It's got to be time to forget what's gone before, the personalities and the grudges and join together. The trust has a constitution and a framework in place which could make this work. Think of the Trust as a shell organisation which can have a steering committee in the short term (I would like to think this could be populated by mostly by qualified and knowledgeable fans (e.g Salz), and perhaps a couple of the clubs elder statesmen) and then votes, appointments etc can follow. Also, in the eyes of the media, the trust has gravitas and a profile, no matter what some posters on here think. IMHO, this has to be done under the Trust's flag. There is no point having rival "Save Our Saints" campaigns. We need one fans campaign for everyone to unite behind, in case we are not bought out, and we need to move quickly. As I have mentioned to Derry in the past, the Trust is the ideal vehicle, provided that all previous petty squabbles can be forgotten. It's time to look at the bigger picture.

The Football League Is upside down The Football League is upside down We're going up with the Charlton The Football League is upside down. To the tune of OWTS

Look at Rule 60, page 94. http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/7a/20/0,,12306~139386,00.pdf Sporting sanction is only for a "CLub" in insolvency and it is a 9 point deduction. If you go up to Rule 50, it states that a club can be suspended if it "or its parent undertaking" goes into insolvency. Suspention means no more matches. Wonder if the PL have therefore decided not to suspend West Ham. A bit further down it says if the suspension is postponed that the club cannot sign players and may have other restrictions placed on it. Not heard of anything like that happening to West Ham so I wonder if it is as clear cut as it appears?

They could do a cover of The Woolston Ferry song. Now that's a good fund raising idea, think how many 79 pences on itunes that could raise.

Been humming that all evening, good to see others are on the same wavelength. After a sullen couple of hours, I think I actually feel much better now the uncertainty has gone, and I am well up for next season and all the new away trips it will bring (assuming we can get to next season). I'd lost the love of going to the match this year, but honestly can't wait for Stockport, Huddersfield, Oldham Crewe etc, with hopefully a united fanbase once more.

Spot on gemmel. We are where we are, we need to accept it and hopefully move on with realistic expectations of what can be achieved in the next few seasons. No point crying over spilt milk.

There's a Southampton Football Company Limited (registered no 6874662) formed on that date. Wouldn't read too much into that for now. Often the acquiring co has a shelf name (e.g. newco 1 limited or the like) until after the deal has completed

If this is ever going to fly, you will need to get some proper professional advice (accountancy and lawyers), but there is no point incurring the fees until it is absolutely necessary. Also, you will need a suitable vehicle for the acquisition to be made by. Many people have pointed out that such a vehicle exists in the form of the Saints Trust (its and Industrial and Provident Society, i.e. a not for profit legal entity with a constitution etc see: http://www.saintstrust.co.uk/about.php) and this could save a lot of time and costs. Have discussions been held with the current Trust committee members about this in case it ever is required? Now would be the time to do it so contingency plans can be made.

Is there any word on the amount of the fee? At last Nathan Dyer shows his worth to SFC!

Got a feeling Stockport are (though they are close to the brink at the moment), possibly Brentford?? There are a couple more, but all in the lower reaches of the league (so we might fit right in). I think it's fair to say that it hasn't been an unmitigated success...

GM, I think you are getting confused. Having looked at the accounts, player registrations are only included as intangible assets of the group on a consolidated basis, I assume that they are within SFCL. When companies form part of a group, the parent is obliged by law to submit consolidated accounts for the group as a whole and invidual accounts for itself. This does not result in them becoming the same thing from a legal perspective. When you look at the individual balance sheet for SLH itself (p39-44), the assets of that company are just property and shares in group companies, which ties in with what the administrator is arguing. Having now looked at the accounts, I am more confident that the adminstrator's argument will stand up to scrutiny.

Front row, just above the "M" in Omega. I think...

October '84, spurs at the dell, we won 1-0, moran scored, loved it.

I would imagine that the barclays/aviva arrangements would be governed by a deed of priority or an intercreditor agreement, setting out exactly who gets what and in what order. Barclays will be secured and as pointed out above this is mentioned in the accounts. To all those who think nothing is happening, I bet the Begbies team and probably working all hours finding a buyer, but these things take time and can get particularly complex. If they get a sale away by the end of the season they will have done very well IMHO

Yep. Also if shares in SFCL are transferred to the new buyer (which is what I understand is proposed) the "golden share" remains in SFCL and the then the league won't have a transfer of it to approve or not.

If he did the best thing for the club/fans which was not the best thing for the creditors of SLH, he would be breaching his legal duty. Therefore, it is unlikely that he will ever say this, unless his duty to the creditors can be aligned with what you consider the best interests of the club.

Their fees come out of the creditors funds. Administrators are heavily regulated and have to hold a licence to be an insolvency practitioner, any malpractice could result in this being revoked and so it is really not worth their while. Creditors can also challenge administrators' decisions in court if they think that they are not discharging their legal duties properly. These things take time, the fact that there are a lot of interested parties at this stage is much better than just 1 or 2, Begbies will have a feel of who is serious and who are time wasters and will concentrate on that. Also, it will be many more people than just Fry adn Hudson, they will have a team of people working for them, dealing with the day to day running of the club, the statutory requirements of running an administration and the sale of the business.

BUt the key thing is, if the football club doesn't go into administration, it doesn't need to exit anything. So the CVA point is irrelevant. This is why the point is so crucial For what it's worth, I see this as a massive arse covering exercise by the Football League. As it stands they have nothing on us, otherwise they would have just deducted the points. By doing this, they can say to the other league clubs that they've done everything possible but that no rule has been broken. Also, the administrator's response on the OS was very bullish. I reckon the report will say: SLH and SFC are different legal entities (which they are). Whilst the PLC submits consolidated accounts (as every parent co has to by law) the companies submit separate accounts to Companies House (again as required by law) and that the PLC has other assets than its shares in SFCL. SFC is not in any form of insolvency proceedings and so cannot be deducted points.

Could have a conditional offer where they pay £x now and then a further £y if we stay in the CCC.

Probably best to wait to see if a deal is done before relief sets in. Nothing is certain til documents have been signed and money has changed hands.