thorpie the sinner Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 With Pinnacle teetering on the edge, just wondered if anyone knew anything about the Swiss consortium? They may yet prove to be our saviours! I am still hoping Pinnacle pull it off, but the bottom line is I want a club, we are running seriously out of time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I don't see it from what I have heard as teetering on the edge. The official comments from Fry, Lynam and MLT are this is an issue with league that needs sorting and would apply to anyone else. Remember a few on here have had an anti-pinnacle agends from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 With Pinnacle teetering on the edge, just wondered if anyone knew anything about the Swiss consortium? They may yet prove to be our saviours! I am still hoping Pinnacle pull it off, but the bottom line is I want a club, we are running seriously out of time! Your first 6 words are unneccessarily melodramatic, Thorpie, and remember not to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Christ...I wish some of you guys would take in what the actual problem is ffs. If it is, as laid out by some on here, and confirmed by TL and MF, then no-one in their right mind will be buying us under the terms that the FL are proposing.............Simple folks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefuriousb Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 The official comments from Fry, Lynam and MLT are this is an issue with league that needs sorting and would apply to anyone else. Remember a few on here have had an anti-pinnacle agends from the start. My reading of events/comments would suggest that the way the administrator has sold/broken up the assets of SLH is what has caused the issue with the league. It would therefore have been the same for any of the potential groups looking to takeover. Legally, it has possibly questioned the validity of the points deduction, so the league are seeking to ensure that the decision is not challenged. Morally, would we be right to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 With Pinnacle teetering on the edge, just wondered if anyone knew anything about the Swiss consortium? They may yet prove to be our saviours! I am still hoping Pinnacle pull it off, but the bottom line is I want a club, we are running seriously out of time! All those words to ask what the Swiss role is! I'll get my coat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 All those words to ask what the Swiss role is! I'll get my coat. You're just cuckoo !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 You're just cuckoo !!! I know I am, "An' I got a sustificate to prove it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I think this is the guy fronting their bid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Your first 6 words are unneccessarily melodramatic, Thorpie, and remember not to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. Pinnacle will take over this Club this week. We are witnessing an attack on the FL for several reasons, but the main one is the issue of minus 10 points. We probably - morally - deserve the deduction. But it appears the FL may not have a legal leg to stand on. MLT is competitive and wants the best for this club - had he not attacked the potential injustice he'd be criticised for rolling over and showing a lack of desire etc etc. I am glad he IS challenging it. Also, KK is a sensitive, highly gifted, soul. Knowing that we avoided promotion due to the 10 point deduction next May rather than his efforts may keep his reputation intact and also him at Saints to finish the job. I predict Pinnacle, MLT, KK and minus 10 points, happy faces all round and a further destabilised Mawhinney (there are many looking for his blood in the FL not just us) this week. Enjoy the last loop of the rollercoaster... Southampton FC has come into life again. It died 14 years ago and became Southampton Leisure Holdings plc without most people realising it. But, despite Mr Lowe's (worst) efforts, it is about to be reborn. ENJOY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burger Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Pinnacle will take over this Club this week. We are witnessing an attack on the FL for several reasons, but the main one is the issue of minus 10 points. We probably - morally - deserve the deduction. But it appears the FL may not have a legal leg to stand on. MLT is competitive and wants the best for this club - had he not attacked the potential injustice he'd be criticised for rolling over and showing a lack of desire etc etc. I am glad he IS challenging it. Also, KK is a sensitive, highly gifted, soul. Knowing that we avoided promotion due to the 10 point deduction next May rather than his efforts may keep his reputation intact and also him at Saints to finish the job. I predict Pinnacle, MLT, KK and minus 10 points, happy faces all round and a further destabilised Mawhinney (there are many looking for his blood in the FL not just us) this week. Enjoy the last loop of the rollercoaster... Southampton FC has come into life again. It died 14 years ago and became Southampton Leisure Holdings plc without most people realising it. But, despite Mr Lowe's (worst) efforts, it is about to be reborn. ENJOY. So you don't think the FL will have added another minus 15 for no CVA? My view is the Pinnacle proposal put to the FL was based on no further penalty - if there was, the deal could not be completed. The FL need to decide whether they stick to thier guns (as per with Leeds) and say licence will only be granted to League 1 with a minus 25 start......and effectively kill the Pinnacle bid or make an exception........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 if the swiss have more money than pinnacle then thats good. i think each interested party should present to a fans forum, with the fans choosing which is best to buy the club. we could be missing a diamond by backing MLT regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 (edited) Number one now has to be Pinnacle to close the deal. I just can't see the points deduction being a big deal in the end. Quite rightly they are trying to start next season without any penalty because there is no league rule that penalises a club if it's owners go into administration. In the event that Pinnacle tell the league and the administrator to forget it, then provided there is evidence that the Swiss company is as substantial as I've been told, then they would be the obvious choice. I have completely gone off the MJ bid since the source of the alleged backing was changed recently to a middle east based source. Notwithstanding everything else Pinnacle could sign the licence not appeal then go to court and sue the league. Edited 21 June, 2009 by derry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 So you don't think the FL will have added another minus 15 for no CVA? My view is the Pinnacle proposal put to the FL was based on no further penalty - if there was, the deal could not be completed. The FL need to decide whether they stick to thier guns (as per with Leeds) and say licence will only be granted to League 1 with a minus 25 start......and effectively kill the Pinnacle bid or make an exception........... Very good point. But surely the reason the deal could not be completed was due to FL (in)action on Friday and therefore a further points deduction would certainly be unfair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Forget the Swiss "bid", Pinnacle will come through, and they have the best interests of the club at heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Number one now has to be Pinnacle to close the deal. I just can't see the points deduction being a big deal in the end. Quite rightly they are trying to start next season without any penalty because there is no league rule that penalises a club if it's owners go into administration. There is, as this is the ruling they have enacted to deduct us 10 points. The League have a massive amount of discretion and authority (as supported by the Arbitration Panel's ruling with regards Leeds) to ensure the integrity of their competition is upheld. We would have to prove that their decision was one that no rational decision maker in their position would make, which is simply not the case. Notwithstanding everything else Pinnacle could sign the licence not appeal then go to court and sue the league. Which is exactly what Leeds did and this was promptly rejected by the Arbitration Panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 There is, as this is the ruling they have enacted to deduct us 10 points. The League have a massive amount of discretion and authority (as supported by the Arbitration Panel's ruling with regards Leeds) to ensure the integrity of their competition is upheld. We would have to prove that their decision was one that no rational decision maker in their position would make, which is simply not the case. Which is exactly what Leeds did and this was promptly rejected by the Arbitration Panel. The nub of the whole thing Steve, as far as I am concerned is their interpretation of 'inextricably linked'. I don't think it holds up in law. I'm pretty sure the lawyers don't either. I'm not talking about arbitration. Anything that allows the authorities to make a decision should be ignored and go straight for the throat. I'm talking about taking out an injunction to prevent the league acting pending a high court case challenging their rules and their interpretation. If they won the case it would open the door to sue those personally responsible for the interpretation. If the thought of that didn't concentrate the minds nothing would. Somebody is going to challenge the league in law at some point. To do this though, they would have to own the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I have heard the Swiss are neutral about bidding again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 What I can't get my head around is that Pinnacle supposedly were surprised by a late issue with the FL. Surely they know what happened to Leeds? They were effectively forced to sign a no appeal clause, then took it to court saying 'we only sgned this under duress' ,so the League 'backed down' and allowed an appeal, to them, which they then turned down ..surprise, surprise ..points deduction stood. The media reports imply that we are simply having the same experience as Leeds. Why is this a shock? Why is this a last minute hitch? K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I don't see it from what I have heard as teetering on the edge. The official comments from Fry, Lynam and MLT are this is an issue with league that needs sorting and would apply to anyone else. Remember a few on here have had an anti-pinnacle agends from the start. Don't forget there are a few old favourites who would gain from everyone falling on their arse and dropping out. Then a white kight steps forward who doesnt quite have as much as anyone else but no debt.....but saves the day and also stands to make a big profit if we go up. I have seen one of their supporters post a 'secret' on here recently why now when I know he must of been told that ages ago? There are some big games being played out on here. Have a look at GM's posts some of that rings true.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 what's the secret you are referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Its on GM's organ monkey thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Its on GM's organ monkey thread. far too much rubbish on that one for me to go back over it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 far too much rubbish on that one for me to go back over it! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I'm not talking about arbitration. Anything that allows the authorities to make a decision should be ignored and go straight for the throat. I'm talking about taking out an injunction to prevent the league acting pending a high court case challenging their rules and their interpretation. If they won the case it would open the door to sue those personally responsible for the interpretation. If the thought of that didn't concentrate the minds nothing would. Somebody is going to challenge the league in law at some point. To do this though, they would have to own the club. The problem is that we are subject to a valid pre-existing agreement to submit any disputes between clubs and the League to arbitration as per FA Rule K arbitration. Leeds attempted to go to the High Court, but quickly backtracked and withdrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 What I can't get my head around is that Pinnacle supposedly were surprised by a late issue with the FL. Surely they know what happened to Leeds? They were effectively forced to sign a no appeal clause, then took it to court saying 'we only sgned this under duress' ,so the League 'backed down' and allowed an appeal, to them, which they then turned down ..surprise, surprise ..points deduction stood. The media reports imply that we are simply having the same experience as Leeds. Why is this a shock? Why is this a last minute hitch? K. I think the problem might be that Pinnacle want to know exactly what our start position will be i.e. -10 or up to -30, as this would certainly impact on the price you would pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 I think the problem might be that Pinnacle want to know exactly what our start position will be i.e. -10 or up to -30, as this would certainly impact on the price you would pay. Have said in several threads that the issue is not the 10 point penalty, there is something else involved. Today I found this on the Guardian web site which perhaps sheds some more light on the matter, haven't seen this elsewhere, though I could have missed it amongst all the crap that is being written: "...[Pinnacle's] solicitors unhappy over two legal aspects of the negotiations with creditors. Principal among the concerns is that a notice of withdrawal, issued by the Football League when the club was deemed to be in insolvency proceedings, be withdrawn to ensure that Southampton can compete as a league club next term. "There are a number of very small issues that remain, the principal one of which is the Football League situation," said the joint-administrator, Mark Fry. "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." So the problem appears to be that one or more of our creditors are causing a problem, because they are concerned that FL may not let us play ball next season. Presumably Barclays are playing hard ball and want guarantees before agreeing to the deal with Pinnacle. So until Pinnacle get agreement with the FL about our membership of the League, the deal is blocked. That would explain why Pinnacle were not aware of a situation until the last minute. It is clearly Barclays or possibly one of the other creditors that has thrown the spanner in the works. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/19/southampton-takeover-pinnacle-consortium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonToo Posted 21 June, 2009 Share Posted 21 June, 2009 Have said in several threads that the issue is not the 10 point penalty, there is something else involved. Today I found this on the Guardian web site which perhaps sheds some more light on the matter, haven't seen this elsewhere, though I could have missed it amongst all the crap that is being written: "...[Pinnacle's] solicitors unhappy over two legal aspects of the negotiations with creditors. Principal among the concerns is that a notice of withdrawal, issued by the Football League when the club was deemed to be in insolvency proceedings, be withdrawn to ensure that Southampton can compete as a league club next term. "There are a number of very small issues that remain, the principal one of which is the Football League situation," said the joint-administrator, Mark Fry. "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." So the problem appears to be that one or more of our creditors are causing a problem, because they are concerned that FL may not let us play ball next season. Presumably Barclays are playing hard ball and want guarantees before agreeing to the deal with Pinnacle. So until Pinnacle get agreement with the FL about our membership of the League, the deal is blocked. That would explain why Pinnacle were not aware of a situation until the last minute. It is clearly Barclays or possibly one of the other creditors that has thrown the spanner in the works. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/19/southampton-takeover-pinnacle-consortium The headline confirms the issue is about the 10 points as it impacts the agreement with the creditors: • Pinnacle consortium wants to appeal against points deduction • Buyers insistent that club itself was never in administration 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