Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 After the break on SSN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Matt still hoping deal to be done by Monday and take over as Chairman. And god does he care. And a montage of his best goals. Love it Sky Sports!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 saying certain legal aspects were not made available until 48 hours ago......which need to be thrashed out did not mention it was the -10 thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehouseboys Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 saying certain legal aspects were not made available until 48 hours ago......which need to be thrashed out did not mention it was the -10 thing ...but also mentioned NDAs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Has there been any statement from Mr Fry yet? If so can someone point me in the right direction so I can read it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Has there been any statement from Mr Fry yet? If so can someone point me in the right direction so I can read it? All he has said, it would seem, is the quote in the Echo about no bidder will complete until the League's assurance they will get the licence to play in League 1 this coming season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saints_is_the_south Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Matt still hoping deal to be done by Monday and take over as Chairman. And god does he care. And a montage of his best goals. Love it Sky Sports!! They spoke to him directly? Atleast thats a bit better news anyway. We should just take the 10 points & be done with it, what the FL are doing though is illegal, this country is a democracy & we have a right to appeal which they are going to deny us by what is pretty much blackmail, w*nkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 saying certain legal aspects were not made available until 48 hours ago......which need to be thrashed out did not mention it was the -10 thing As I suspect, and a few others are beginning to do so, however unplatable it may seem, the FL are not necessarily the (only) bad guys here, the 10 points deduction and any appeal are probably not the blocking issue. The appeal situation is not new (there are previous examples, Leeds for instance) and this is not a legal issue. Something else is in play here. I still hope and (probably expect) that it will all work out, but to all those getting in a lather about the FL calm down, that MAY not be the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSaint75 Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Would it be possible for fans to launch a legal appeal against the FL decision, it wouldn't be pinnacle doing it so would prevent issue of a license? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Did he actually say that it could happen before Monday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 June, 2009 We seem to be getting far more publicity at the moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Did he actually say that it could happen before Monday? It's on now, but he said shortly. Thanks employees and fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 It's on now, but he said shortly. Thanks employees and fans. yeah, he never mentioned today, just said "despite outside influences" to undermine their bid.....i assume that was a little swipe at the FL !! there was certainly no suggestion from MLT that the thing is about to go tits up ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Would it be possible for fans to launch a legal appeal against the FL decision, it wouldn't be pinnacle doing it so would prevent issue of a license? Now then.......who's a clever boy. Anyone with big balls.....I see a lady in the Echo has taken on the local Health Authority re Fluoride, all done with legal aid. Anyone!!!!!!.......feeling brave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisPY Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Now then.......who's a clever boy. Anyone with big balls.....I see a lady in the Echo has taken on the local Health Authority re Fluoride, all done with legal aid. Anyone!!!!!!.......feeling brave. No chance of it working. Needs to be the club that appeal otherwise the FL will just dismiss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Matt still hoping deal to be done by Monday and take over as Chairman. And god does he care. And a montage of his best goals. Love it Sky Sports!! I would so 'go gay' for that man!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 yeah, he never mentioned today, just said "despite outside influences" to undermine their bid.....i assume that was a little swipe at the FL !! Conclusion jumping again. How about this as an alternative, the even more evil Rupert Lowe or Wilde has some legal hold on some of the assets. No evidence of this, but is actually just as likely as the FL scenario. The FL issue has been known about for weeks, there is precedent for this, it is not the issue in my mind. Perhaps Lowe/Wilde are actually the legal owners of the FL License (the Golden Share) and require recompense before agreeing to hand it over. Complete speculation and probably utter tosh, but as much basis in fact as what is being said about the FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 20 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 June, 2009 No chance of it working. Needs to be the club that appeal otherwise the FL will just dismiss it. The only thing that could happen, and this is IF the club becomes extinct on the back of the FL wanting to save face and not allow us to appeal, thus failing the bid, is a civil case made by the people and businesses of Southampton. It's illegal for the Football League, or any governing body for that matter, to let another business intentionally go bust due to 'saving face'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSaint75 Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 No chance of it working. Needs to be the club that appeal otherwise the FL will just dismiss it. Why? They can't just dismiss any party that decides to take them to task via the courts, I'm not saying it would work, I'm also not saying that the fans have to directly fund it, somebody with a serious monetary interest in the outcome could fund it! TBF if what has been said is true, that 3 sets of lawyers have come to the same conclusion it wouldn't even be a risk to take them on. It may need to be challenged on a more personal loss kind of level or that livelihoods are being threatened ie. other workers at SMS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintalan Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 MLT’s words on the telephone to SSN “It’s been a frustrating time for us despite several attempts for clarity over the FL position over a licence related matter to which we still have no answer. It’s not a new issue but it has to be resolved to our satisfaction in order to conclude the takeover. Despite continuing outside interference with our bid we’re committed to complete the deal as we feel it’s in the best long term interests of SFC which is obviously what I care most about. We’re hoping that we can get this resolved shortly and the next announcement that we will make will be to confirm the takeover and I would just like to thank the staff at the Football Club and indeed the fans for their patience and their support in this matter, I can tell them it’s appreciated from all concerned.” MLT added in a statement “Certain legal aspects which were not part of the original terms which we agreed to enter into have only been made available within the last 48 hours. The details of these matters are governed by a NDA which we entered into and we have adhered to in every respect” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Complete speculation and probably utter tosh Yep : - ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saints_is_the_south Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 MLT’s words on the telephone to SSN “It’s been a frustrating time for us despite several attempts for clarity over the FL position over a licence related matter to which we still have no answer. It’s not a new issue but it has to be resolved to our satisfaction in order to conclude the takeover. Despite continuing outside interference with our bid we’re committed to complete the deal as we feel it’s in the best long term interests of SFC which is obviously what I care most about. We’re hoping that we can get this resolved shortly and the next announcement that we will make will be to confirm the takeover and I would just like to thank the staff at the Football Club and indeed the fans for their patience and their support in this matter, I can tell them it’s appreciated from all concerned.” MLT added in a statement “Certain legal aspects which were not part of the original terms which we agreed to enter into have only been made available within the last 48 hours. The details of these matters are governed by a NDA which we entered into and we have adhered to in every respect” Thanks for that, makes me a little more positive about it all although from Matty's words that they can't complete the takeover until the matter with the FL is resolved to their satisfaction would indicate that Pinnacle aren't going to budge over the 10 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 the title of the thread sums it up for me we do not KNOW the " Details of Saints takeover" what is being bought how much for etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostBoys Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 It occurs to me that Mawhinney and the rest of the committee incur personal liability if they are found to have acted without legal foundation i.e. refuse to grant the licence and SFC goes bust. The action would then be taken by the Administrator backed by the creditors. I have emailed the football league but I think it needs a legal letter for the point to be clarified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eharty9 Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 if we got the best of the best barristers, it is of my understanding that legally we could accuse the football league of being in breach of breaking the law withing this, and if we took them to court, the football league could not function, and no games could take place untill it was all resolved, now that would really make lord mawhinney sh*t himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITKSaint Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 if we got the best of the best barristers, it is of my understanding that legally we could accuse the football league of being in breach of breaking the law withing this, and if we took them to court, the football league could not function, and no games could take place untill it was all resolved, now that would really make lord mawhinney sh*t himself No, it would make us look like dirty Leeds. Fighting the FL in court would not be a good thing for us on numerous levels imvho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 No, it would make us look like dirty Leeds. Fighting the FL in court would not be a good thing for us on numerous levels imvho. But the administrator could on behalf of his creditors if SFC were liquidated. And if he won then the FL would be forced to pay sufficient compensation to resurrect the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFKA South Woodford Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 It was reported by Sky all afternoon yesterday that the Football League are not happy about the transfer of assets from SLH to a new holding/parent company, and that it is this structure that is holding up the deal, as they are unwilling to sign off on the licence because of it. It seems to me that in only buying the assets of SLH rather than completing a takeover of SLH, Pinnacle virtually legally prove that SFC and SLH are not inextricably linked, and strengthen their case for appeal under the FL's current rules, thus weakening the FL's case. So the FL obviously don't want to sign off. The major problem here, is that if this is the case, then the football league, are now dictating to Pinnacle on how they will be allowed to takeover the assets of SLH, which would mean a takeover of SLH rather than just by buying it's assets. Thus making it a virtually unworkable deal for anyone, let alone Pinnacle. As we know, the FL can't be proved to be wrong about anything, so will pathetically fight till the bitter end before conceeding an inch, let alone admitting that their decision was legally wrong. They changed the rules after the Derby debacle, to make it impossible for clubs to go into admin without getting a points deduction. So they should just admit they made a mistake, revoke the penalty and then change the rules again. So that in future, any club which is an asset of a holding company that goes into Admin, will get a points penalty as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 It was reported by Sky all afternoon yesterday that the Football League are not happy about the transfer of assets from SLH to a new holding/parent company, and that it is this structure that is holding up the deal, as they are unwilling to sign off on the licence because of it. It seems to me that in only buying the assets of SLH rather than completing a takeover of SLH, Pinnacle virtually legally prove that SFC and SLH are not inextricably linked, and strengthen their case for appeal under the FL's current rules, thus weakening the FL's case. So the FL obviously don't want to sign off. The major problem here, is that if this is the case, then the football league, are now dictating to Pinnacle on how they will be allowed to takeover the assets of SLH, which would mean a takeover of SLH rather than just by buying it's assets. Thus making it a virtually unworkable deal for anyone, let alone Pinnacle. As we know, the FL can't be proved to be wrong about anything, so will pathetically fight till the bitter end before conceeding an inch, let alone admitting that their decision was legally wrong. They changed the rules after the Derby debacle, to make it impossible for clubs to go into admin without getting a points deduction. So they should just admit they made a mistake, revoke the penalty and then change the rules again. So that in future, any club which is an asset of a holding company that goes into Admin, will get a points penalty as well. Could Fry sell the SLH without the assets for £1 to get over this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFKA South Woodford Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Could Fry sell the SLH without the assets for £1 to get over this? You can't sell something which has already been liquidated. According to Tony Lynams latest post, these are issues which can be overcome fairly quickly and easily, so I am probably wrong in my summarisation. Let's hope Monday afternoon/Tuesday morning brings us all, a shed load of good news announcements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 You can't sell something which has already been liquidated. According to Tony Lynams latest post, these are issues which can be overcome fairly quickly and easily, so I am probably wrong in my summarisation. Let's hope Monday afternoon/Tuesday morning brings us all, a shed load of good news announcements.I didnt realise it had already been liquidated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 June, 2009 Share Posted 20 June, 2009 Everytime i tune into sky sposts news they're talking about ******* Rugby.:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 the title of the thread sums it up for me we do not KNOW the " Details of Saints takeover" what is being bought how much for etc ..nor do I expect us to hear until AFTER the deal is done. No company does bsuiness / or a takeover by running to the press and its shareholders every day with confidential info. We must wait a little longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 ..nor do I expect us to hear until AFTER the deal is done. No company does bsuiness / or a takeover by running to the press and its shareholders every day with confidential info. We must wait a little longer. The title of the thread makes the op look like an attention seeker and was designed to fool in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Conclusion jumping again. How about this as an alternative, the even more evil Rupert Lowe or Wilde has some legal hold on some of the assets. No evidence of this, but is actually just as likely as the FL scenario. The FL issue has been known about for weeks, there is precedent for this, it is not the issue in my mind. Perhaps Lowe/Wilde are actually the legal owners of the FL License (the Golden Share) and require recompense before agreeing to hand it over. Complete speculation and probably utter tosh, but as much basis in fact as what is being said about the FL. I'm not sure you're right on this, surely it would be held by the football club BUT if you are right then a) this could be Lowes final stab in the back to Saints and b) could be the reason that the FL are refusing any appeal, saying that to transfer the licence, we would have to accept the 10 point penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Codger Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Lord Mawhinney has a small bit of room in which to manoeuvre. When we were given the minus 10 point penalty and he was describing the relationship between SLH and SFC, Lord Mawhinney made great play on the phrase the two "inextricably linked". If it can be proven the two entities are not "inextricably linked" then he would be wholly justified in saying things aren't as clear cut as he was initially led to believe. The word "inextricably" is so final that even the merest suggestion that SLC and SFC had some daylight between them would give good cause to re-consider. 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