SaintRobbie Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 SSN seemed to hint KK was likely to be manager. Sounds as if regardless of what the League say MLT and Pinnacle are going to take legal action over the 10 point deduction. All I can guess is that there must be a strong case - after all we are not SLH plc FC we are Southampton Football Club again... 2 very very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintsAddict Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 At least Hampshire are doing ok in the cricket, lets hope Fred is still unfit for the FPT semi in a few weeks, anyone know if KP will play in that? (sorry to talk about cricket but theres f all going on atm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tac-tics Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I've facebooked my anger over ths issue. me tooo! allready have 6 skates "like" my status! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Surely the FL holding Pinnnacle to ransom like this is highly illegal and challengeable. They are surely entering dangerous waters denying the right of a club to come out of administration because they fear a legal challenge. Agreed. We know we had to satisfy the FL's 'fit & proper person' test but it seems like we overlooked the 'have you got any outstanding disputes which we might lose' test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightspark Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 fl@football-league.co.uk email them your displeasure if your feeling like getting it off your chest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 (edited) Surely the FL holding Pinnnacle to ransom like this is highly illegal and challengeable. They are surely entering dangerous waters denying the right of a club to come out of administration because they fear a legal challenge. Of course it is. Sounds as if the League are in a panic and MLT has a case. That said I hope we can get on with the announcements soon and fight this 10 point battle in due course. The rest of the league wont like us if we win, but if they only knew the pain that SLH plc had put the fans and the Club through over the last 14 years they'd be at least some sympathy. Actrually Duncan, this is where your new historical book 'Southampton FC - The Low(e) Years' can help in explaining to the masses what we really had to endure. Edited 19 June, 2009 by SaintRobbie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Of course it is. Sounds as if the League are in a panic and MLT has a case. That said I hope we can get on with the announcements soon and fight this 10 point battle in due course. The rest of the league wont like us if we win, but if they only knew the pain that SLH plc had put the fans and the Club through over the last 14 years they'd be at least some sympathy. They are obviously aware they are in a lose lose situation. If they let us in then there is obviously a strong case against them and they are aware they may lose. If they don't then they could end up forcing us into liquidation and would get IMO a lot of grief and very bad publicity. IMO they are obviously scrapping around for some sort of answer and i would suspect that this may now drag on until next week. Hope not though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Of course it is. Sounds as if the League are in a panic and MLT has a case. That said I hope we can get on with the announcements soon and fight this 10 point battle in due course. The rest of the league wont like us if we win, but if they only knew the pain that SLH plc had put the fans and the Club through over the last 14 years they'd be at least some sympathy. Actrually Duncan, this is where your new historical book 'Southampton FC - The Low(e) Years' can help in explaining to the masses what we really had to endure. 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Think NSS is right, a lot of work was done by lawyers before any bids were received, so that the new owners are buying the shares of SFC Ltd. SLH IF it had any assets would be a separate deal within the deal where the buyer is buying them. Remember the comments at the time that the FL said one thing because of their rules, but UK Corporate Law said somthing a little different. I think it is likely to be that Fry & some very serious legal brains had this up their sleeves for some time and the FL are probably trying to find a way out of their own mess. They won't be happy, other clubs won't be happy, but it would be bl**dy funny if they have pulled that off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katalinic Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Actually, who has whom by the short & curlys may not be quite so clear cut So could it be the case that by ratifying the deal the FL are by default admitting that the 2 aren't linked and therefore will have screwed up their own case for the 10 point deduction? This would also tie in with FF's point about how they can deny the right of the club to come out of administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11700_5228800,00.html About halfway down this report, at the time SLH went into administration, Lord Mawhinney indicated we had a right to appeal the 10 point deduction. At no point has it ever been mentioned that if we found a new owner, who wanted to take up that option, would we lose that right of appeal (which would be a nonsense in itself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 They are obviously aware they are in a lose lose situation. If they let us in then there is obviously a strong case against them and they are aware they may lose. If they don't then they could end up forcing us into liquidation and would get IMO a lot of grief and very bad publicity. I don't understand why this is only coming up now though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Surely the FL holding Pinnnacle to ransom like this is highly illegal and challengeable. They are surely entering dangerous waters denying the right of a club to come out of administration because they fear a legal challenge. I was thinking the same Duncan. It seems a case of blackmail. PS Is it just my computer that is slow today on this site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11700_5228800,00.html About halfway down this report, at the time SLH went into administration, Lord Mawhinney indicated we had a right to appeal the 10 point deduction. At no point has it ever been mentioned that if we found a new owner, who wanted to take up that option, would we lose that right of appeal (which would be a nonsense in itself). 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 PS Is it just my computer that is slow today on this site? No having same problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I don't understand why this is only coming up now though... a few weeks ago we had no buyer and couldn't even afford to pay the wages. I suppose as far as they were concerned the situation may well have never become an issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Ah, the crash is nearly upon us!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 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". Thats exactly it IMO. The FL are trying to avoid being bounced into accepting a deal which forces them to effectively concede that the points deduction should not apply. I can happily wait a few more days if it means a realistic chance of avoiding the -10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I don't understand why this is only coming up now though...it is the best time IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_stevo Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 No having same problems if only we had all paid a 5er to have a better and more stable server Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 No having same problems thaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnkkkkkkkkkyyyyoooouuu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Does anyone know if Pinnacle are "buying" all of SLH's old assets? I understand they are definitely buying SFC, but Ive not heard anything definitive on SMS, Staplewood, Jacksons Farm etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Surely the FL holding Pinnnacle to ransom like this is highly illegal and challengeable. They are surely entering dangerous waters denying the right of a club to come out of administration because they fear a legal challenge. "You can't play our game 'cos you're better at it than us" You really couldn't make it up! Areswipes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iowsaintsfan Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Ah, the crash is nearly upon us!!!!!!!! Not far from a record amount online Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I don't understand why this is only coming up now though... Dunno, i am not going to lie i don't understand all the details of any appeal or any legal technicalities. I can only presume that the FL had an incling that something like this may happen however they remained silent until the time in which they were challenged on the whole situation. Or perhaps they were just sitting back and hoped that they would not be challenged ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurleyBurley Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Sod it, get on with the takeover fight the 10 point deduction on the football pitch - It's not that big an obstacle, generally sides that win the league or are promoted second are head and shoulders above the rest so lets aim for that and forget about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceandfriendly Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 if only we had all paid a 5er to have a better and more stable server All our fivers went on buying the fixtures obviously, which by the way cost hundreds of pounds to purchase from the FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 All a bit odd if true. The FA have never claimed that the penalty is routed in law. It's not. SLH PLC and SFC Ltd are separate entities. That is a fact. It is not up for debate. The penalty comes from a rather liberal interpretation of its own rules by the FA. What the FA relied upon was the contention that they were "inextrciably linked". That is also, quite frankly, a fact which can hardly be up for debate. The only question is whether the FA rules allowed them the discretion to exercise such a judgment. The issue at hand is a simple one of construction of the FA rules. The legal reality of the SLH umbrella cannot be questioned. If the FA are getting worried about the legal strcuture of the deal with respect to the points penalty then they are missing the point completely and don't seem to understand their own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Does anyone know if Pinnacle are "buying" all of SLH's old assets? I understand they are definitely buying SFC, but Ive not heard anything definitive on SMS, Staplewood, Jacksons Farm etc. 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, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightspark Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Still an announcement at 2:30? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Whats the latest - been away for 2 hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I reckon moving house is less stressful than this :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Whats the latest - been away for 2 hours Football League holding up the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I reckon moving house is less stressful than this :mad: Dunno, at least you don't get blackmailed after you have made a decision on where to move. (usually) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 We need an enquiry into this take over. I believe it should be held in private and the final report should be completely redacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I reckon moving house is less stressful than this :mad: its even worse than going shopping with the wife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 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, Maybe Staplewood is being sold to the Keegan School Of Football Excellence....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wightman35 Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 All a bit odd if true. The FA have never claimed that the penalty is routed in law. It's not. SLH PLC and SFC Ltd are separate entities. That is a fact. It is not up for debate. The penalty comes from a rather liberal interpretation of its own rules by the FA. What the FA relied upon was the contention that they were "inextrciably linked". That is also, quite frankly, a fact which can hardly be up for debate. The only question is whether the FA rules allowed them the discretion to exercise such a judgment. The issue at hand is a simple one of construction of the FA rules. The legal reality of the SLH umbrella cannot be questioned. If the FA are getting worried about the legal strcuture of the deal with respect to the points penalty then they are missing the point completely and don't seem to understand their own conclusions. FL, surely. Not the FA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incongruous Monk Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 All a bit odd if true. The FA have never claimed that the penalty is routed in law. It's not. SLH PLC and SFC Ltd are separate entities. That is a fact. It is not up for debate. The penalty comes from a rather liberal interpretation of its own rules by the FA. What the FA relied upon was the contention that they were "inextrciably linked". That is also, quite frankly, a fact which can hardly be up for debate. The only question is whether the FA rules allowed them the discretion to exercise such a judgment. The issue at hand is a simple one of construction of the FA rules. The legal reality of the SLH umbrella cannot be questioned. If the FA are getting worried about the legal strcuture of the deal with respect to the points penalty then they are missing the point completely and don't seem to understand their own conclusions. Spot on... except it's the FL not the FA ;-) Very different things :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidshokk Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 sorry to be a noob but what is the difference exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 This is baffling. Surely the intention to appeal the points deduction is completely irrelevant to the takeover? The funds have been proven, everything's been signed and sealed, the "Fit and Proper Persons" tests have all been passed... that should be everything they need. Mawhinney said himself that we have a right of appeal, so I don't see how this can be holding it all up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Paul Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 All a bit odd if true. The FA have never claimed that the penalty is routed in law. It's not. SLH PLC and SFC Ltd are separate entities. That is a fact. It is not up for debate. The penalty comes from a rather liberal interpretation of its own rules by the FA. It's the FL, but the point is spot on. My personal opinion is the only chance the League have of saving face is with regard to the transfer of the Golden Share. They can impose whatever terms they want (as it's their comp) in respect of transfering this. That is how they got Bates to accept the -15, and his appeal was to other FL Clubs and not via a court of law (he signed away that right). They could be telling Pinnacle, "give up the right of appeal or we wont transfer the Golden Share". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Originally Posted by benjii All a bit odd if true. The FA have never claimed that the penalty is routed in law. It's not. SLH PLC and SFC Ltd are separate entities. That is a fact. It is not up for debate. The penalty comes from a rather liberal interpretation of its own rules by the FA. What the FA relied upon was the contention that they were "inextrciably linked". That is also, quite frankly, a fact which can hardly be up for debate. The only question is whether the FA rules allowed them the discretion to exercise such a judgment. The issue at hand is a simple one of construction of the FA rules. The legal reality of the SLH umbrella cannot be questioned. If the FA are getting worried about the legal strcuture of the deal with respect to the points penalty then they are missing the point completely and don't seem to understand their own conclusions. Spot on... except it's the FL not the FA ;-) Very different things :-) Any appeal has to go to a FL panel made up of FL chairman, so there is no real issue there. The only thing that makes sense is that the FL informed Saints prior to the administration deadline that the holding company going into administration, would not lead to a points deuction for the club. That I believe could leave to recourse outside of the FL structure and looks like something the FL is very keen to stop before it has started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 On SSN again Mike O'Callaghan (sic) SISA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right sider Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 The FA are the governing body for football in England. Eg England team, Premier league down to sunday leagues. Football league (FL) is the competition comprising Championship, L1 and L2. HTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 This is baffling. Surely the intention to appeal the points deduction is completely irrelevant to the takeover? The funds have been proven, everything's been signed and sealed, the "Fit and Proper Persons" tests have all been passed... that should be everything they need. Mawhinney said himself that we have a right of appeal, so I don't see how this can be holding it all up I realised long ago that no sanity or logic ever comes from either the FA or the FL, they just seem to do just as they want to do, when they want to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 This is baffling. Surely the intention to appeal the points deduction is completely irrelevant to the takeover? The funds have been proven, everything's been signed and sealed, the "Fit and Proper Persons" tests have all been passed... that should be everything they need. Mawhinney said himself that we have a right of appeal, so I don't see how this can be holding it all up Sky said it was the way that the deal has been structured and at a guess, that has been done in a way that wouldn't leave the FA / FL a leg to stand on and by rubber stamping the deal they would effectively be wiping the points of themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Football League holding up the deal. according to who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben05 Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 on ssn now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Mawhinney said himself that we have a right of appeal, so I don't see how this can be holding it all up Because from the little that we know, it would appear that Saints have a valid case and could get the points deduction over-turned. The Football League won't want to eat humble pie and admit they were wrong by imposing the points deduction on us in the first place, so my guess is that we have valid grounds for appeal and the FL are trying to find a way to get themselves out of the mess that they created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts