Fitzhugh Fella Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 (edited) In the light of SSN reports that Fry is now open to offers again because Pinnacle will not agree to the Football League's insistance not to appeal the 10 point deduction it is time for a statement from the administrator asap. I am hoping Sky have it horribly wrong because a) I think the FL position to be illegal and therefore challengeable and b) I can't believe Pinnacle would let the deal slip through their hands over something that could be overturned after 4 games. This has been a stomach churning day for us fans but spare a thought to all the poor bu**ers at SMS who's livlehoods are now being apparently tossed around like a political football. FYA Mark Fry - the fans have been patient for 80 days now, the 3 week exclusivity period will end very shortly - so please tell us where do we stand tonight? Edited 19 June, 2009 by Fitzhugh Fella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Farmer Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 (edited) FYO Mark Fry - the fans have been patient for 80 days now, the 3 week exclusivity period will end very shortly - so please tell us where do we stand tonight? The administrators aren't duty bound to offer us any explanations though, so might stay silent until Monday now. I'm sure Pinnacle will do there utmost to resolve the outstanding issues over the next few days. Edited 19 June, 2009 by The Farmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4737_carlin Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I imagine Non Disclosure Agreements stop the sort of stuff we want to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 come on mr fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 It would be good to hear from Fry directly, but the picture I'm getting is that the Football League, led by that Tory Pr*ck Mawhinney, will only play ball if we agree not to challenge their Bulls**t 10 points deduction and thus expose their amateurism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit2 Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Duncan, a few points if I may add I see this act from the FL basically as industrial blackmail! A few months back when SLH went into admin it took a week or so for the FL to come up with a decision. During that time they must have had their legal teams look at all the in and outs of the penalty they handed to us and thought it was concrete. The problem I have now with it is Pinnacle have said they want the right to challenge it and the FL have said no and if you do or want to we will not issue your football license. Which is wrong and like I said blackmail! If they thought their case was solid then give us the license and then lets battle it out in court. So what happens now, the FL have a weekend for the legal team again to look at the ins and outs again. They will either back down or in my opinion do the decent thing, issue the license and then let Pinnacle decide to challenge it iin court. We might lose that appeal but at least we have had the chance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 June, 2009 The administrators aren't duty bound to offer us any explanations though, so might stay silent until Monday now. I'm sure Pinnacle will do there utmost to resolve the outstanding issues over the next few days. I think Fry has a duty to communicate tonight if only to keep other potentially interested parties informed, because the exclusivity deadline is about to pass and Pinnacle have not (because of being held to ransom by a desperate FL) completed the takeover. If I was involved in the Swiss bid for instance I would be very interested in Fry's perception of the situation. The very least he can do is refute or confirm SSN's report that he is now open to other offers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 it will all be ok mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Either there is a right to appeal or there isn't. No organisation can be selective over who is allowed to appeal and under what circumstances. If the constitution of the Football League allows for an appeal (as it must) then it cannot allow for the controlling board to choose who is allowed to appeal and who is not. This must be sorted out and quickly. The League have got themselves into a right mess way over their heads. Quite clearly SLH and SFC cannot be considered to be 'inextricably linked' if one can go bust and fold and the other can carry on with new backing with all liabilities covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonToo Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Brinkmanship again and worth trying if the FL can be browbeaten into submission. I'd still like to know though if Wotte has been allowed to go as that would tell the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corsacar saint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Surely Mr Salz, has advised Pinnacle as to whether the football league are likely to get away with such threats.[What do people expect with a tory arsehole trying[certainly a trying person] running things for the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made in Southampton Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Wow I'll have some of what your drinking / Taking please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Duncan, a few points if I may add I see this act from the FL basically as industrial blackmail! A few months back when SLH went into admin it took a week or so for the FL to come up with a decision. During that time they must have had their legal teams look at all the in and outs of the penalty they handed to us and thought it was concrete. The problem I have now with it is Pinnacle have said they want to challenge it and the FL have said no and if you do or want to we will not issue your football license. Which is wrong and like I said blackmail! If they thought their case was solid then give us the license and then lets battle it out in court. So what happens now, the FL have a weekend for the legal team again to look at the ins and outs again. They will either back down or in my opinion do the decent thing, issue the license and then let Pinnacle decide to challenge it iin court. We might lose that appeal but at least we have had the chance! Absolutely Rob, good analysis. My take on this (if what is being reported on Sky is true) is that the FL have one trump card left over this whole legally dubious (but probably morally correct) deduction of 10 points issue. They are now playing it and hoping Pinnacle will blink and sign a "non appeal" letter which gets the FL off the hook. Pinnacle know they have good legal grounds to appeal, know the FL are on a sticky wicket and are, quite understandably playing hard ball. Who is going to blink first? Answer the fans because we are all desperate and after that my guess is it will have to be the FL. Oh to be a fly on the wall on Monday's meeting. Of course Fry could issue a clarification tonight but I am finding his silence deafening and concerning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I think Fry has a duty to communicate tonight if only to keep other potentially interested parties informed, because the exclusivity deadline is about to pass I thought that had already passed? At 7pm? Or did I misread that somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 A less dramatised version of events from Sky here: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11719_5389552,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Fry has commented in the Echo, albeit he hasnt confirmed about whther he is open to offers but it sounds like he is confident Pinnacle can iron out what he described as "a number of very small issues". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 A less dramatised version of events from Sky here: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11719_5389552,00.html The issue appears to be league membership, not the points deduction. Oh bummer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 June, 2009 A less dramatised version of events from Sky here: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11719_5389552,00.html Thanks for that - it seems Sky are backing away from what Baz reported earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Nice Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 The issue appears to be league membership, not the points deduction. Oh bummer. Well i think one effects the other and is related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 The issue appears to be league membership, not the points deduction. Oh bummer. On what grounds? SFC would carry on unchanged. On that basis Man Utd and Liverpool and all the others would have been thrown out of the PL when they changed ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 June, 2009 8.40pm update - SSN have just re-iterated that Fry is now opening things up to other bidders and also confirm the FL want Pinnacle to sign a non-appeal committment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delmary Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 8.40pm update - SSN have just re-iterated that Fry is now opening things up to other bidders and also confirm the FL want Pinnacle to sign a non-appeal committment.What's fry playing at? Surely he should allow an extension? What a joker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 8.40pm update - SSN have just re-iterated that Fry is now opening things up to other bidders and also confirm the FL want Pinnacle to sign a non-appeal committment. That was just a rerun of what they said before. I think they are just stating that Fry is opening things to other bidders because of the Exc agreement ending. However, if Fry thinks that the FL issue can be resolved then he is unlikely to push other bidders forward too hastily. In theory Pinnacle could take control on Monday, any other party would be weeks away. We havent got that time, the players are back Monday!! Im sure Fry will be working with Pinnacle to solve this hitch as his highest priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Surely the FL don't give a damn about us appealling to them. They will just reject the appeal. What they'll be trying to get us to commit to is not to take the case to law, ie not to sue them for loss of income etc because they should not have deducted the points. K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 what is the reality here? Fry and Pinnacle are almost over the finishing line, to start again with someone else, so close to the start of the season could very well spell the end of the club. Surely Fry's only real course of action is to work with Pinnacle and the League on Monday to sort whatever the real problem is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 19 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 June, 2009 what is the reality here? Fry and Pinnacle are almost over the finishing line, to start again with someone else, so close to the start of the season could very well spell the end of the club. Surely Fry's only real course of action is to work with Pinnacle and the League on Monday to sort whatever the real problem is? Which is why Fry should at least clarify things as they now stand tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 What's fry playing at? Surely he should allow an extension? What a joker! Why does he need to grant any exension? All that has happened today in terms of admnistration is that the 21 day exclusivity period that Pinnacle 'bought' with their non-returnable deposit has expired. That doesn't mean that Pinnacle cannot now go on and complete. It just means they no longer have any greater rights than any other bidder ..and I suspect that the agreed price is no longer fixed. If they sign on the dotted lne on mo,nday Fry will happily let them complete the deal. If there is any chance they won't he needs to start re-considering other bidders asap. It is not in *our* interests for him to extend the exclusivity. K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Either there is a right to appeal or there isn't. No organisation can be selective over who is allowed to appeal and under what circumstances. If the constitution of the Football League allows for an appeal (as it must) then it cannot allow for the controlling board to choose who is allowed to appeal and who is not. This must be sorted out and quickly. The League have got themselves into a right mess way over their heads. Quite clearly SLH and SFC cannot be considered to be 'inextricably linked' if one can go bust and fold and the other can carry on with new backing with all liabilities covered. Sorry Whitey but this is the whole point. The Football League is a Members Club. They can impose whatever rules they like, and there is nothing you can do about it. You either abide by their rules or you are not a member, simples. If and its a big if, the 10 point deduction is the sticking point then I have to admit that I think Pinnacle have been naive at best. The penalty will not be overturned, unless the FL want it to be. Pinnacle should forget it, get on with the takeover and just get round it by ensuring we win enough games to get promotion. My suspicion is that there is more to this though than the 10 point deduction. I certainly hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 (edited) Which is why Fry should at least clarify things as they now stand tonight. The only thing from Fry has been that bit in the Echo : Frustrated administrator Mark Fry this evening told the Daily Echo; "There are a number of very small issues that remain but the principle one of which is the Football League situation. "They have agreed to have an emergency meeting on Monday but until any bidder can be satisfied about membership of the League they won't complete a purchase of the club." Reading this a couple of times and assuming the Echo quote is verbatim, then he seems to be saying that not only is it a show stopper for Pinnacle, but any other purchaser. Therefore it is in Fry's interests to work this through with Pinnacle and the League on Monday. Even if he were to start with another consortium, he would be faced with exactly the same problem with them. Oh yes, source : League to hold emergency board meeting over Saints takeover . Edited 19 June, 2009 by hugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Sorry Whitey but this is the whole point. The Football League is a Members Club. They can impose whatever rules they like, and there is nothing you can do about it. You either abide by their rules or you are not a member, simples. If and its a big if, the 10 point deduction is the sticking point then I have to admit that I think Pinnacle have been naive at best. The penalty will not be overturned, unless the FL want it to be. Pinnacle should forget it, get on with the takeover and just get round it by ensuring we win enough games to get promotion. My suspicion is that there is more to this though than the 10 point deduction. I certainly hope so. But the rules that you agree to abide to include a right to appeal. The League are now being selective about which rules apply and which do not. Why not simply allow an appeal? There must be more to this than meets the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 The only thing from Fry has been that bit in the Echo : Reading this a couple of times and assuming the Echo quote is verbatim, then he seems to be saying that not only is it a show stopper for Pinnacle, but any other purchaser. Therefore it is in Fry's interests to work this through with Pinnacle and the League on Monday. Even if he were to start with another consortium, he would be faced with exactly the same problem with them. Exactly. So why has he not cleared this up before now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Duncan, a few points if I may add I see this act from the FL basically as industrial blackmail! A few months back when SLH went into admin it took a week or so for the FL to come up with a decision. During that time they must have had their legal teams look at all the in and outs of the penalty they handed to us and thought it was concrete. The problem I have now with it is Pinnacle have said they want the right to challenge it and the FL have said no and if you do or want to we will not issue your football license. Which is wrong and like I said blackmail! If they thought their case was solid then give us the license and then lets battle it out in court. So what happens now, the FL have a weekend for the legal team again to look at the ins and outs again. They will either back down or in my opinion do the decent thing, issue the license and then let Pinnacle decide to challenge it iin court. We might lose that appeal but at least we have had the chance! Could we take the FL to court on Monday to challenge their insistance on us accepting the 10 point deduction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 What's fry playing at? Surely he should allow an extension? What a joker! If you are referring to the period of exclusivity, I don't think that he has the mandate to make that call. Remember, there are still other bidders on the periphery of this deal who may very well still have an interest in trading. Fry would effectively be blocking what is after all a 'free market' if he extended the period of exclusivity as paid for by Pinnacle and no doubt communicated to those other interested parties. I don't think that he can stop them re-entering the market now if they so wish. How much notice he takes of them, and whether he uses their interest to his advantage is another question of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I think it is a simple case of "buyers remorse" and they no longer wish to buy Saints :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Could we take the FL to court on Monday to challenge their insistance on us accepting the 10 point deduction? Who would pay? Why would Fry if he had MJ and Swiss consortium willing to take the 10 point penalty if it meant them getting the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evo Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 The most likely situation IMVHO is that Fry and Pinnacle are complicit in making it appear as though the deal will not be completed under these terms. By that I mean Fry will 'not have time' to 'seriously entertain' any other bid or interest from another party that may sniff around. To put it bluntly it will be an unofficial extension to the exclusivity period for as a couple of days to try and get those 10 points knocked off (which is probably a now or never kind of opportunity), by trying to manouver the FL. I think a fair amount can be read into the fact that there has been a fairly well maintained media blackout over the last three weeks, yet today it's leaks galore out of all of the main protagonists. That to me says that anything that is reported in the media is being reported because the interested parties want it to be reported. Put it this way - to us fans it seems like this is **** or bust time. Now imagine that this is just a bit of diversion and the metaphorical handshake has unofficially already been done. Totally different situation, no? As for the legal situation, this is a difficult one. The two applicable acts I can come up with are the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Both these acts overlap and, at times, contradict each other. The gist of it though is that the law looks to protect consumers rather than businesses, so I'm not sure how that would play out. There must be common law avenues to investigate - and probably some precidents dating back to 18 hundred and something. There is certainly an air of inevitability about all of this though. Much as I had hoped for it to be wrapped up today, it was never going to happen was it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 That's how I read it - problem is more administrator v league than Pinnacle,hence I am not stressed. The only thing from Fry has been that bit in the Echo : Reading this a couple of times and assuming the Echo quote is verbatim, then he seems to be saying that not only is it a show stopper for Pinnacle, but any other purchaser. Therefore it is in Fry's interests to work this through with Pinnacle and the League on Monday. Even if he were to start with another consortium, he would be faced with exactly the same problem with them. Oh yes, source : League to hold emergency board meeting over Saints takeover . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 That's how I read it - problem is more administrator v league than Pinnacle,hence I am not stressed. Are you saying that legally he may not be able to sell a Football League club becuase he cannot guarantee that it would still be in the League? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakley's ex Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 But the rules that you agree to abide to include a right to appeal. The League are now being selective about which rules apply and which do not. Why not simply allow an appeal? There must be more to this than meets the eye. I think there is. As far as I understand, we have no right to appeal, as such, since the League only allows appeals based on Force Majeure. We would have had to appeal within 7 days of the notice and made representations within 21 days. But we didn't, because the Club (as defined by the league regulations) is not in administration. The holding company is. The problem is that the administrator, the Club and Pinnacle have never accepted the League's position that the Club is in administration. Under such circumstances, how can they sign a legal document saying they won't contest the sanction. Unfortunately the league can then simply say, well we don't like you and we withold your golden share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 that the terms of the deal he sought are not reaching leagues requirements due to them bending the rules to punish us. This will apply for other bidders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvictaSaint Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 That's how I read it - problem is more administrator v league than Pinnacle,hence I am not stressed. Was thinking exactly the same thing when I read the quotation. It clearly had Frey down as saying "any" bidder - not the current one, but any bidder. Thus as you rightly say NickG it is in his interests to clear this up on Monday, one way or another, and then help Pinnacle go form there. To start from scratch, with another bidder, and risk losing the creditor's X amount in the pound alreadt agreed (far greater than anything they would receive if we went into liquidation) would be extreme folly. Whatever we may think of Fry, he cannot be that naive or stupid. A few more bumps as we descend through the cloud cover and then....smooth landing. Welcome to New SFC everybody, enjoy your stay.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Been out for a few hours wot a f*cking mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 no, chill out and look forward to next week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I think there is. As far as I understand' date=' we have no right to appeal, as such, since the League only allows appeals based on Force Majeure. We would have had to appeal within 7 days of the notice and made representations within 21 days. But we didn't, because the Club (as defined by the league regulations) is not in administration. The holding company is. The problem is that the administrator, the Club and Pinnacle have never accepted the League's position that the Club is in administration. Under such circumstances, how can they sign a legal document saying they won't contest the sanction. Unfortunately the league can then simply say, well we don't like you and we withold your golden share.[/quote'] These legal niceties are doing my head in. I thought that the club had lodged notice of a possible appeal within the required period so as to leave that option open to the new buyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit2 Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I think there is. As far as I understand' date=' we have no right to appeal, as such, since the League only allows appeals based on Force Majeure. We would have had to appeal within 7 days of the notice and made representations within 21 days. But we didn't, because the Club (as defined by the league regulations) is not in administration. The holding company is. The problem is that the administrator, the Club and Pinnacle have never accepted the League's position that the Club is in administration. Under such circumstances, how can they sign a legal document saying they won't contest the sanction. Unfortunately the league can then simply say, well we don't like you and we withold your golden share.[/quote'] From April Football League chairman Lord Mawhinney acknowledged the club do have the right to appeal.Speaking on Sky Sports News, he said: 'There is an appeal mechanism and it's up to Southampton to decide whether they want to appeal and on what basis.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakley's ex Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 From April Football League chairman Lord Mawhinney acknowledged the club do have the right to appeal.Speaking on Sky Sports News, he said: 'There is an appeal mechanism and it's up to Southampton to decide whether they want to appeal and on what basis.' http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/78/3/0,,10794~888,00.pdf Section 12.3.5 onwards is the appeal mechanism as I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Southampton Leisure Holdings a disaster from day one and now it cannot even go broke properly wonder who pays the wages this month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evo Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 Presumably the only reason SFC haven't already appealed is the lack of funds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tttdcs Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 I think there is. As far as I understand' date=' we have no right to appeal, as such, since the League only allows appeals based on Force Majeure. We would have had to appeal within 7 days of the notice and made representations within 21 days. But we didn't, because the Club (as defined by the league regulations) is not in administration. The holding company is. The problem is that the administrator, the Club and Pinnacle have never accepted the League's position that the Club is in administration. Under such circumstances, how can they sign a legal document saying they won't contest the sanction. Unfortunately the league can then simply say, well we don't like you and we withold your golden share.[/quote'] Force Majeure does this mean MLT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted 19 June, 2009 Share Posted 19 June, 2009 wonder who pays the wages this month Will they be paid? The new owner needs to be in place within the next few days to make sure they are. If not, we're up the swanny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now