A question about our -10 points appeal...

[Marsdinho]

What governing body would oversee our appeal and make a judgement?

[Weston Super Saint]

FIFA??

[Frank's cousin]

Court of arbitration for Sport... then even the High Court but culd take months..

[Matthew Le God]

Possibly

 

http://www.tas-cas.org

[Shroppie]

No offence, but aren't there enough threads on this, and hasn't it been done to death?

 

And I'm pretty certain the answer is the FL themselves, so we'll lose.

 

But they don't want the embarrassment of rejecting an obviously sound appeal, so we have to agree not to.

[stevegrant]

Initially it would go to the Football League themselves, which would clearly be a waste of time, but after that it could be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is where I presume the Pinnacle lawyers believe they've got a strong chance of getting it overturned.

 

Personally, I think the negative reputation we'd get from mounting such an appeal from other clubs and particularly at the FL themselves - particularly if it was then successful at CAS - renders the whole exercise a waste of time.

 

However, they should certainly not have the *right* to appeal taken away from them, which is what the Football League are attempting to do.

[Matthew Le God]

Initially it would go to the Football League themselves, which would clearly be a waste of time, but after that it could be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is where I presume the Pinnacle lawyers believe they've got a strong chance of getting it overturned.

 

Personally, I think the negative reputation we'd get from mounting such an appeal from other clubs and particularly at the FL themselves - particularly if it was then successful at CAS - renders the whole exercise a waste of time.

 

However, they should certainly not have the *right* to appeal taken away from them, which is what the Football League are attempting to do.

 

Just telling the FL we intend to do so may be enough for them to back down. I'm sure the FL know we'd be likely to get a ruling in our favour from the Court of Arbitration. Blackmail works both ways

[benjii]

Surely the longer this drags on the more incumbent it is upon the FL to achieve a solution, not Saints (assuming someone is willing to cover monthly overheads).

 

It's their competition that will be screwed up if they have to change everything at the 11th hour.

[Navysaint]

Surely then we could go to court and get our golden share from the Football League within their rules if we satisfied the court about the clubs finances and keep the right of appeal.

 

Then if the court ruled in the clubs favour then go for the removal of the 10 point penalty.

[Marsdinho]

No offence, but aren't there enough threads on this, and hasn't it been done to death?

 

And I'm pretty certain the answer is the FL themselves, so we'll lose.

 

But they don't want the embarrassment of rejecting an obviously sound appeal, so we have to agree not to.

 

Yeah, sorry.

 

I did have a look, but didnt have time to trawl through all the pages on the other threads.

[Wurzel]

Wondering quite how serious this could end up being?

 

If as we are led to believe Pinnacle have 3 sets of lawyers all agreeing we should not have had to deductions.

 

If the League refuse our right to appeal and/or refuse our entry into the league then surely a court case will follow (restraint of trade, deliberate interference , not sure of the legal terms it would come under).

 

If that was to happen could the FL even risk allowing the forthcoming season to start without us until a court case has been decided?

[stevegrant]

Wondering quite how serious this could end up being?

"Very" is the simple answer, I guess

 

If the League refuse our right to appeal and/or refuse our entry into the league then surely a court case will follow (restraint of trade, deliberate interference , not sure of the legal terms it would come under).

"Economic Duress" is all I've managed to find. Essentially, a contract is voidable if the innocent party can prove it had no other practical choice but to agree to the contract. One of the elements of this is that there should be a "lack of reasonable alternative but to accept the other party's terms" - clearly this would apply here as there isn't another league at the same level that we could join instead.

 

If that was to happen could the FL even risk allowing the forthcoming season to start without us until a court case has been decided?

Who knows...

[Scummer]

Yeah, sorry.

 

I did have a look, but didnt have time to trawl through all the pages on the other threads.

 

No need to apologise, as Shroppie was incorrect/only partially correct.

[CB Fry]

Just telling the FL we intend to do so may be enough for them to back down. I'm sure the FL know we'd be likely to get a ruling in our favour from the Court of Arbitration. Blackmail works both ways

 

 

Not in this case it doesn't. "Go and find another league to play in then".

 

When do you think the court of arbitration will look at this "case"? Next week? Tomorrow? How about 2011.

 

There's a dopey misconception that the FL are stopping us appealing because they think they will "lose" and that they are "wrong".

 

Wrong.

 

They are stopping us appealing for our own good, because us appealing this perfectly fair ruling would waste everyone's time and make Southampton Football Club look a bunch of divs.

 

And I still think we'd lose at the court of arbitration anyway, because our case is wafer, wafer thin.

 

The football league aren't scared of us and our team of hot shot Perry Masons. They are trying to save us from ourselves.

 

 

"Legally" Sheffield United "won" against the PL and WHU and now look at them rightfully restored to the Premie... oh, right.

[Pancake]

 

They are stopping us appealing for our own good, because us appealing this perfectly fair ruling would waste everyone's time and make Southampton Football Club look a bunch of divs.

 

Serious question, are you a qualified lawyer?

[Beer Engine]

I'm sure the FL know we'd be likely to get a ruling in our favour from the Court of Arbitration.

 

The chance of overturning the points deduction either at arbitration or in the High Court is less than 5%. Why?

 

The FL decision was fair.

 

All the FL have to say is that when a football club's business is hived off into various companies within a group and the business of that group is substantially comprised of running a football club (as stated on the OS), the FL's insolvency regulations will apply if any company within the group goes into administration.

 

It's a simple argument that will prevail despite the deficiencies in the drafting of the FL Rules.

 

Trust me on this -our so-called "right" to appeal is not worth having so it shouldn't be a deal-breaker.

 

Please feel free to PM me if you or those you speak for would like to know more.

 

Please fe

[Scummer]

All the FL have to say is that when a football club's business is hived off into various companies within a group and the business of that group is substantially comprised of running a football club (as stated on the OS), the FL's insolvency regulations will apply if any company within the group goes into administration.

 

Any company within the group?

 

So you're saying that if the radio station had gone into administration when we owned it, the club would have been hit with a ten point deduction? Or the insurance company, or event management company?

[Burger]

The chance of overturning the points deduction either at arbitration or in the High Court is less than 5%. Why?

 

The FL decision was fair.

 

All the FL have to say is that when a football club's business is hived off into various companies within a group and the business of that group is substantially comprised of running a football club (as stated on the OS), the FL's insolvency regulations will apply if any company within the group goes into administration.

 

It's a simple argument that will prevail despite the deficiencies in the drafting of the FL Rules.

 

Trust me on this -our so-called "right" to appeal is not worth having so it shouldn't be a deal-breaker.

 

Please feel free to PM me if you or those you speak for would like to know more.

 

Please fe

 

Agree with you, but I still think this is about an additional points deduction from FL and not the -10, which I've assumed that Pinnacle would live with. If FL say today "we believe it is fair to other teams that SFC should start on -25" then Pinnacle walk away. Right to appeal is worthless.

[Frank's cousin]

Uhm... I wonder- I wonder if the rules themselves could be challenged - If issue being that it punishes clubs/individuals that were either not in place or could not influence the decisions made that brought about ruling. Its an interesting concept for a potential challenge as it could be argued you are prosecuting someone for an offence committed by others?

 

I hate seeing Sport in the courts and I hope it does not come to that, but the problem we have right now is that it directly impacts on our survival so we should use everything at our disposal to force a compromise. Whether its right or wrong to have teh points deducted is a rule/legal issue and should be dealt with as such. What is NOT a legal is issue but our right, is a right of appeal should we chose to do do. It should NOT be a condition set by the FL that clubs waiver a legal right - that is simply morally and possibly legally wrong and should be challenged if you ask me.

[Beer Engine]

 

 

"Economic Duress" is all I've managed to find. Essentially, a contract is voidable if the innocent party can prove it had no other practical choice but to agree to the contract. One of the elements of this is that there should be a "lack of reasonable alternative but to accept the other party's terms" - clearly this would apply here as there isn't another league at the same level that we could join instead.

 

 

I don't think we'd have a cat in hell's chance of avoiding our agreement with the FL on the grounds of duress - although lack of reasonable alternatives might help us overturn the the popularly held view that the decisons of sports' governing bodies are not susceptible to judicial review.

 

The FL's decision to deduct 10 points (if that is the only issue at stake here) is fair on its merits - so no court or tribunal is going to stretch existing legal principles to overturn any decision that is essentially fair.

 

Also if we were succesful in avoiding the contract then it would be as if the contract had never been entered into - so we wouldn't have the golden share.

[Beer Engine]

Any company within the group?

 

So you're saying that if the radio station had gone into administration when we owned it, the club would have been hit with a ten point deduction? Or the insurance company, or event management company?

 

OK - any company within the group whose business is essential for the continuing survival of the football club - not the radio station company obviously.

 

No amount of pedantry is going to get us off the 10 point deduction.

 

It might be that Pinnacle is prepared to agree not to "appeal" against the 10 point deduction but that the FL is not prepared to give a reciprocal undertaking not to increase the deduction depending upon the eventual fate of SLH plc et al.

[Frank's cousin]

I don't think we'd have a cat in hell's chance of avoiding our agreement with the FL on the grounds of duress - although lack of reasonable alternatives might help us overturn the the popularly held view that the decisons of sports' governing bodies are not susceptible to judicial review.

 

The FL's decision to deduct 10 points (if that is the only issue at stake here) is fair on its merits - so no court or tribunal is going to stretch existing legal principles to overturn any decision that is essentially fair.

 

Also if we were succesful in avoiding the contract then it would be as if the contract had never been entered into - so we wouldn't have the golden share.

 

As pointed out thoug its notr about whether its right or wrong to have the -10 points - as we all accept there are arguments for this and some against but generally the 'fair' issue is that we should accept it... BUT this is not about being FAIR - IF the competition rules etc are not legally watertight and within those rules the club should have the RIGHT to present this case/argument - eg teh right of Appeal is a basic human right and has nothing to do with whether we think we can win or even have a case to present... The reason the FL want teh club to waiver its right is simple - because we could win and the impications this has say for the league if the ruling were only given say after the end of the season and the points returned - what effect on all the other clubs etc.... - I think what Pinnacle need to try and get is perhaps a compromise of sime sort, but not waive their basic right of appeal

[GenevaSaint]

They are stopping us appealing for our own good, because us appealing this perfectly fair ruling would waste everyone's time and make Southampton Football Club look a bunch of divs.

"Legally" Sheffield United "won" against the PL and WHU and now look at them rightfully restored to the Premie... oh, right.

 

Wrong.

 

They're stopping the right of appeal because they're not 100% sure they have a watertight case. Of course it all depends who heard the appeal, if it was the FL we're fooked. Imagine how ****ed they'd be if we were close to promotion and then the -10 was overturned by a court and we went up. They'd look like a right royal bunch of ****s.

 

And no Sheff U didn't get promoted back to the prem, but they got a shed load of cash for their "case". Doesn't add upto the money they lost in the longer term though.

 

Being pragmatic I think we ought to take the -10 and be done with it. Deep down though I'm ****ed with the FL for not closing the loophole after Derby and think hell give it a go, overturn the -10.

[SaintBobby]

The evidence seems to point to the view that the legal advice received by Pinnacle, MLT, Fry et al, points to us having a very strong - possibly watertight - case against the ten point penalty.

 

If this is so, then I'd be loathe to see us surrender on the -10 points too easily. I really think it could well end up being the difference between promotion and non-promotion, so a good few million quid ride on it.

[The9]

Not in this case it doesn't. "Go and find another league to play in then".

 

When do you think the court of arbitration will look at this "case"? Next week? Tomorrow? How about 2011.

 

There's a dopey misconception that the FL are stopping us appealing because they think they will "lose" and that they are "wrong".

 

Wrong.

 

They are stopping us appealing for our own good, because us appealing this perfectly fair ruling would waste everyone's time and make Southampton Football Club look a bunch of divs.

 

And I still think we'd lose at the court of arbitration anyway, because our case is wafer, wafer thin.

 

 

I don't agree. The Football League are trying to stop us appealing because to do so would take the results of their competition out of their hands and open them up to a swathe of legal challenges in the multitude of examples of places where their competition rules are unenforceable.

 

It was always a FL and FA rule that clubs were not permitted to challenge the organisations in court (even before the days of the Premier League and the FA/Prem League placing money ahead of football) - of course, this is one of the illegal "rules".

 

Personally I'd take the -10, sign the agreement not to appeal and then appeal anyway, using the Leeds "duress" defence. Not that they won, but I suspect that has more to do with the weakness of Leeds' case compared to Saints', which I feel is pretty strong, if based on a technicality that the League still hasn't closed.

 

The League of course will find a bunch of other ways to get us back for it - as it happens Leeds still don't have FL voting rights, IIRC - but for the sake of the 10 points it's got to be worth a go.

[Beer Engine]

As pointed out thoug its notr about whether its right or wrong to have the -10 points - as we all accept there are arguments for this and some against but generally the 'fair' issue is that we should accept it... BUT this is not about being FAIR - IF the competition rules etc are not legally watertight and within those rules the club should have the RIGHT to present this case/argument - eg teh right of Appeal is a basic human right and has nothing to do with whether we think we can win or even have a case to present... The reason the FL want teh club to waiver its right is simple - because we could win and the impications this has say for the league if the ruling were only given say after the end of the season and the points returned - what effect on all the other clubs etc.... - I think what Pinnacle need to try and get is perhaps a compromise of sime sort' date=' but not waive their basic right of appeal[/quote']

 

1. A right of appeal against the decision of one of sport's governing bodies is not a "basic human right".

 

2. The FL rules explicitly provide a right of appeal on the ground that administration was both unforseeable and a consequence of events outside the club's control - we didn't exercise the right of appeal and the time limit for lodging an appeal has passed.

 

3. Had Southampton Football Club (whatever that is) lodged an appeal under the procedure set out in the FL Rules then it would have amounted to a tacit acceptance that those Rules did in fact apply to Southampton Football Club (whatever that is) - so assuming that we had grounds (which we didn't) to lodge an appeal - had we done so we would have negated our very reasons for objecting to the FL's decision which essentially are "nothing to do with us guv'nor".

 

4. No adjudicator is going to bend over backwards to help us get off a penalty that is essentially fair - on the basis of a highly technical or artificial argument. Although English courts take an interpretative approach to construction, it is impossible to ignore the purpose of the rules (which is to stop clubs using administration as a way of punching above their weight and obtaining an unfair competetive advantage) and the merits of the case (we took on huge debts for a stadium and players we could not afford).

 

5. We chose to split the core business of the club (player contracts, stadium ownership, training facilities, sales, marketing and administration, rights management etc etc) into a number of different companies - so the FL can rightly argue that if (a) any of those companies goes into administration and (b) had the whole of the club's business been placed into a single company then that company would have had to go into administration - the rules that apply to "football clubs" in administration under FL Rules will apply.

[The9]

I don't think we'd have a cat in hell's chance of avoiding our agreement with the FL on the grounds of duress.

 

It worked for Leeds in order to get their appeal.

 

As for your "fairness" argument, there are a million permutations of "fairness" and it's always a subjective concept. Where's Stockport's punishment in practical terms ? How is that enforcement of the rules "fair" even between clubs in the same situation in the same couple of months ?

[Evo]

The whole arguement about holding company and club being inextricably linked would take a whole different slant if you, hypothetically, imagined that SLH plc was not a company but an individual person, would it not? Just something to ponder!

[Burger]

It worked for Leeds in order to get their appeal.

 

As for your "fairness" argument, there are a million permutations of "fairness" and it's always a subjective concept. Where's Stockport's punishment in practical terms ? How is that enforcement of the rules "fair" even between clubs in the same situation in the same couple of months ?

 

But we don't know that when Stockport come out of Admin they may get a further points reduction to be applied this season.

 

If the FL are meeting on their own (ie not in discussion with Pinnacle) then I assume the outcome will be "we will grant membership to League with X point deduction (and will not increase that)". Pinnacle then have a simple decision - accept or not.

[The9]

1. A right of appeal against the decision of one of sport's governing bodies is not a "basic human right".

 

2. The FL rules explicitly provide a right of appeal on the ground that administration was both unforseeable and a consequence of events outside the club's control - we didn't exercise the right of appeal and the time limit for lodging an appeal has passed.

 

3. Had Southampton Football Club (whatever that is) lodged an appeal under the procedure set out in the FL Rules then it would have amounted to a tacit acceptance that those Rules did in fact apply to Southampton Football Club (whatever that is) - so assuming that we had grounds (which we didn't) to lodge an appeal - had we done so we would have negated our very reasons for objecting to the FL's decision which essentially are "nothing to do with us guv'nor".

 

4. No adjudicator is going to bend over backwards to help us get off a penalty that is essentially fair - on the basis of a highly technical or artificial argument. Although English courts take an interpretative approach to construction, it is impossible to ignore the purpose of the rules (which is to stop clubs using administration as a way of punching above their weight and obtaining an unfair competetive advantage) and the merits of the case (we took on huge debts for a stadium and players we could not afford).

 

5. We chose to split the core business of the club (player contracts, stadium ownership, training facilities, sales, marketing and administration, rights management etc etc) into a number of different companies - so the FL can rightly argue that if (a) any of those companies goes into administration and (b) had the whole of the club's business been placed into a single company then that company would have had to go into administration - the rules that apply to "football clubs" in administration under FL Rules will apply.

 

You can at the very least argue that the penalty was unforseeable, given that the FC was never in Admin and the -10 ruling contradicts the legal status of the club.

 

The fact that lodging an appeal as the FC would have been tactic acceptance (catch 22, paradox etc) of the situation is also a defence against the appeal expiry process.

 

In fact we might have to appeal against the appeal expiry rule on those grounds first...

 

...long and short of it is the league can do what they like until we challenge it in a court of law, and even then they can still change the rules as they wish pending legal challenge.

 

Clearly they should rewrite the rules AGAIN in this case because something doesn't add up - where's our CVA ? We don't need one ? Why not ? Because we're not in administration - but there's a penalty for not exiting admin with a CVA and the League says we're in Admin... but we don't have one cos we're not... etc. The League hasn't dealt with this situation in this season's rule changes, choosing instead to address the HMRC/CVA issue.

 

4. Is weak as it is undermined by Stockport's case (and numerous others where the points deduction has no effect) and this season we'd be penalised compared to Stockport despite having done (at worst and if proven) the same thing.

 

5. That's for the courts to decide.

[The9]

But we don't know that when Stockport come out of Admin they may get a further points reduction to be applied this season.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right ?

 

Any further deduction to Stockport would be as a result of Stockport failing to agree a CVA, and the "exiting admin via CVA" process is itself so tangibly "unfair" that even the FL have changed the rules regarding the taxman to help prevent it occurring in future.

 

The Bournemouth, Rotherham and Luton deductions can basically be traced to HMRC losing their preferred creditor status by the government and is nothing to do with the FCs at all (other than their failure to recognise that HMRC would vote against all CVAs as a result, and to prioritise HMRC for payments prior to administration).

 

They'd claim it was unfair, we might think "it's the rules" - but at least for them there's a precedent consistently applied - we're arguably not even in administration.

[Frank's cousin]

1. A right of appeal against the decision of one of sport's governing bodies is not a "basic human right".

 

2. The FL rules explicitly provide a right of appeal on the ground that administration was both unforseeable and a consequence of events outside the club's control - we didn't exercise the right of appeal and the time limit for lodging an appeal has passed.

 

3. Had Southampton Football Club (whatever that is) lodged an appeal under the procedure set out in the FL Rules then it would have amounted to a tacit acceptance that those Rules did in fact apply to Southampton Football Club (whatever that is) - so assuming that we had grounds (which we didn't) to lodge an appeal - had we done so we would have negated our very reasons for objecting to the FL's decision which essentially are "nothing to do with us guv'nor".

 

4. No adjudicator is going to bend over backwards to help us get off a penalty that is essentially fair - on the basis of a highly technical or artificial argument. Although English courts take an interpretative approach to construction, it is impossible to ignore the purpose of the rules (which is to stop clubs using administration as a way of punching above their weight and obtaining an unfair competetive advantage) and the merits of the case (we took on huge debts for a stadium and players we could not afford).

 

5. We chose to split the core business of the club (player contracts, stadium ownership, training facilities, sales, marketing and administration, rights management etc etc) into a number of different companies - so the FL can rightly argue that if (a) any of those companies goes into administration and (b) had the whole of the club's business been placed into a single company then that company would have had to go into administration - the rules that apply to "football clubs" in administration under FL Rules will apply.

 

1. Fair enough - but surely you get my point - a right of appeal should not be a bargaining chip - you either have it or you dont.

 

2. We could not exercise our right at that time point because we had administrator in charge of teh club - and this is the first that has been mentioned about a time limit on an appeal - what happens if new evidence is brought to light etc?

 

3. NOt sure what you mean - the FL made their decsion based on their interpretation that SLH and SFC were one and the same - SLH andSFC said no we are not therefore the rule does not apply etc - the impact of the -10 will in effectonly punish SFC as SLH no longer exists as such therefore both SLH and SFC could both appeal and it not be an admission that they are one and teh same?

 

4. I dont think we ghave any problem with understanding why the rule is there, BUT when you consider that the the vast majority of this debt was a) a stadium loan which was entered into when it could be serviced and paid for by revenues that could have been used on players, it seems churlish to suggest that this is the reason... secondly yes teh club under Wilde and to a lesser extent Crouch overspend by 7 mil, but as soon as we were not promoted the new board cut these costs and loaned out high wage earners in effect determined to get within our means - its a mute point but we were trying to work within the spirit of the rules...

 

5. Its the FL rules themselves that say that a club cannnot be a PLC and as such we did not set it up, but in efefct had to have a holding company -a holding company that did have several other interests such as media (radio station) and Finance (insurance services) etc that were only recently sold off... I know its tenuous, but if applying teh stricht letter of teh rules wyou can see why an appeal ight eb possible...

 

 

and in this case surely its more about maintaining a right to appeal - surely its wrong to use that as a bargaining chip in such a case?

[The9]

and in this case surely its more about maintaining a right to appeal - surely its wrong to use that as a bargaining chip in such a case?

 

As I've just said on the other thread, if that's the case we may as well wade in with a starting position of "we'd like a ten point head start please" and go from there.

[Beer Engine]

Hi Frank's Cousin

 

But go right back to square one - our football club tried to gain a competetive advantage by building a large stadium and by buying and paying players that it could not afford.

 

As a result we don't have enough money to continue trading.

 

In the world as it was before the invention of this remarkable thing called "administration" the club would have gone into liquidation straight away. Bye bye Saints.

 

Now, we're hoping to keep all our assets like the stadium and the players (God knows why incidentally but that's another point) but we don't want to pay back the money we borrowed to finance them.

 

It looks like "we" or Pinnacle might do it - keep the club going, let Aviva take a hit for 15 million, Barclays a hit for 2 or 3 million, local businesses another couple of mil?. What possible right do we have to skin our creditors for 20 million?

 

And if we do get away with it as it seems we might, isn't a 10 point deduction a very, very small price to pay for getting off with 20 bars worth of assets?

[SaintRichmond]

Initially it would go to the Football League themselves, which would clearly be a waste of time, but after that it could be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is where I presume the Pinnacle lawyers believe they've got a strong chance of getting it overturned.

 

Personally, I think the negative reputation we'd get from mounting such an appeal from other clubs and particularly at the FL themselves - particularly if it was then successful at CAS - renders the whole exercise a waste of time.

 

However, they should certainly not have the *right* to appeal taken away from them, which is what the Football League are attempting to do.

 

 

Perhaps .... just perhaps ..... the FL are worried that IF Saints 10 point "penalty" is overturned, then it would set a precedant for any future FL penalty ruling ????????

 

Personally, I have NEVER been in favour of docking points, because it does NOT punish the guilty ones ....... all the ****s at Boardroom level

 

IT PUNISHES THE FOOTBALLERS AND THE FANS ......... and it is blatantly wrong

[alehouseboys]

Compromise.

 

Accept the -10...but...if we miss out on the play-offs (or staying up!!) by several points then the FL can give 'em back to us at the end of the season.

 

Can't say fairer than that.

[speculator]

The chance of overturning the points deduction either at arbitration or in the High Court is less than 5%. Why?

 

The FL decision was fair.

 

All the FL have to say is that when a football club's business is hived off into various companies within a group and the business of that group is substantially comprised of running a football club (as stated on the OS), the FL's insolvency regulations will apply if any company within the group goes into administration.

 

It's a simple argument that will prevail despite the deficiencies in the drafting of the FL Rules.

 

Trust me on this -our so-called "right" to appeal is not worth having so it shouldn't be a deal-breaker.

 

Please feel free to PM me if you or those you speak for would like to know more.

 

Please fe

 

Wise words with the possible exception the quoted percentage is a little high. I understood the FL's rules on holding companies was to protect clubs owned by a company with a diverse business portfolio. Should the parent company fold as a result of one of the club's sibling companies going bust the FC in question would remain protected from punishment.

 

This maybe a very simplistic view but arguably it is a view that will be held by the wider football community and to my limited knowledge SFC although owned by a holding company did not form part of a wider business portfolio for SLH PLC at the time of administration.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong and it would be interesting to know if there are clubs in the FL owned by a holding company with other business interests to make a theoretical comparison.

 

Personally, I would like to see Pinnacle withdraw from debating the point and get on with running the club and use allocated funds set aside to mitigate the risk of a failed legal challenge as direct investment into the infrastructure of their new acquistion.

[Frank's cousin]

Hi Frank's Cousin

 

But go right back to square one - our football club tried to gain a competetive advantage by building a large stadium and by buying and paying players that it could not afford.

 

As a result we don't have enough money to continue trading.

 

In the world as it was before the invention of this remarkable thing called "administration" the club would have gone into liquidation straight away. Bye bye Saints.

 

Now, we're hoping to keep all our assets like the stadium and the players (God knows why incidentally but that's another point) but we don't want to pay back the money we borrowed to finance them.

 

It looks like "we" or Pinnacle might do it - keep the club going, let Aviva take a hit for 15 million, Barclays a hit for 2 or 3 million, local businesses another couple of mil?. What possible right do we have to skin our creditors for 20 million?

 

And if we do get away with it as it seems we might, isn't a 10 point deduction a very, very small price to pay for getting off with 20 bars worth of assets?

 

True, but I would argue that when in the prem, as it was easily serviceable the new stadium was fine ! and being relegated should be enough proof that we gained no competitive advantage from it or the players we bought at the time;-)

 

True we did in that CCC season and for that fair enough punishment should follow...

 

... And I have always argued that we should have tried to avoid admin at all costs for that very reason, because it is now causing concern for the bidder and we could end up with Whackojacko!

 

My ideal compromise from the FL rules perspective would be that a club could have the points back - if they can guarrantee to pay back all creditors in full if new owners come in, or agree deals with creditors for FULL repayment of a period of time.. it is IMPOSSIBLE to sit here and type about moral and ethical rationale for having the right to appeal, whilst creditors get 50p in the £ and the club is debt free - whoopee for admin - it got rid of lowe....but puts at risk the club the employees, the smaller creditors etc and new owners get it for a steal... So from that perspective I think we should accept it and move on and admit for bloody lucky we have been... but from a legal perspective, if within the rules, we shoudl do what we can...

[ringwood]

well the actual statement is here

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/ChampionshipNewsDetail/0,,10794~1636735,00.html

 

But I don't believe its that simple, the league has its knickers in a twist as from finance law it shows the two as separate and there's no cva to allow the league to apply its rules. If you trawl thru the site you'll find the Luton and Rotherham statements and they make scary reading

[Aardvark]

Initially it would go to the Football League themselves, which would clearly be a waste of time, but after that it could be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is where I presume the Pinnacle lawyers believe they've got a strong chance of getting it overturned.

 

Personally, I think the negative reputation we'd get from mounting such an appeal from other clubs and particularly at the FL themselves - particularly if it was then successful at CAS - renders the whole exercise a waste of time.

 

However, they should certainly not have the *right* to appeal taken away from them, which is what the Football League are attempting to do.

 

 

Spot on. It's not so much about whether you agree or disagree with the penalty, but there is a fundemental issue of right of appeal here. To refuse it is antidemocratic at best!

[rallyboy]

I note there are a couple on here (out of hundreds!) who are obviously legal minds, hopefully they will grasp my layman version of events -

 

Law is black and white and fact-based, so forget, 'we deserve it', 'I'm tired of fighting it', 'let's just get on' etc.

We are all fed up with it BUT imo, you cannot meekly surrender ten points when a penalty has not been correctly applied, especially if it adds a year to a multi-million pound development plan.

That would be the equivalent of us conceding a dodgy last minute penalty that relegated us and saying,

'well we were rubbish all season so justice has sort-of been done by an appalling linesman's incorrect decision...'

 

 

Surely these are the facts for legal purposes -

The club has never been in administration.

The club did not miss paying wages (delayed but not missed).

The club is still trading.

 

And if the answer is 'but we will go into administration without a buyer' - Yes, and that is the time that the penalty applies - when it actually happens, and it hasn't.

 

 

Meaning that the league took poor legal advice, jumped the gun, and now has a problem, which they are trying to make ours.

[aintforever]

I think the crux of the issue is can the FL, as a national sporting body, act how it pleases of do they have to adhere to certain laws (restraint of trade etc).

 

For example, could the FL say "We don't like the colour of your kit - you're out"?

[Beer Engine]

well the actual statement is here

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/ChampionshipNewsDetail/0,,10794~1636735,00.html

 

But I don't believe its that simple, the league has its knickers in a twist as from finance law it shows the two as separate and there's no cva to allow the league to apply its rules. If you trawl thru the site you'll find the Luton and Rotherham statements and they make scary reading

 

Actually - it is that simple - the FL's staement is (for once) bang on the money.

 

Here's the clinching argument:-

 

1. Rule 12.3.1 of the Regulations of the Football League Limited states that .. "if any Club shall ... have an administration order made in respect of that Club ... the Club shall be deducted 10 points etc .."

 

2. The word "Club" is defined in Rule 1.1 to mean .. "any Association Football club which is from time to time, a member of The League ..."

 

3. There is nothing in the FL Rules that runs contrary to the FL's finding that Southampton Football Club comprised SFC Limited, SLH plc and the company that owns the stadium.

 

4. One of the "Force Majeure" events that would allow an appeal against 10 points deduction for clubs in administration (Rule 12.3) is "Default by another Club:... where [going into administration] is caused by the default of another football club" - so, if Saints had gone bust solely due to the fact that the holding company for say Derby County owed us £3 million in unpaid fees for a player we had sold them, then according to the argument put forward by Pinnacle and their lawyers, we would not be able to overturn our 10 points deduction on the narrow, technical ground that Derby's holding company did not comprise all or part of Derby County football Club ...

 

That is why narrow, technical arguments designed solely to thwart substantive justice always fail in the end ....

[CB Fry]

Perhaps .... just perhaps ..... the FL are worried that IF Saints 10 point "penalty" is overturned, then it would set a precedant for any future FL penalty ruling ????????

 

Personally, I have NEVER been in favour of docking points, because it does NOT punish the guilty ones ....... all the ****s at Boardroom level

 

IT PUNISHES THE FOOTBALLERS AND THE FANS ......... and it is blatantly wrong

 

 

That's funny, because when we come out of admin we'll be debt free and the club will be sitting on a £30m stadium they've paid about £10m for.

 

Putting us at a massive advantage compared to other clubs. Meaning the FOOTBALLERS!!!!!! and THE FANNNSSSSS!!!!!! will benefit from our massive spending power and resources we have secured for a third of the cost.

 

That's why there is a 10 point deduction, to even that unfair benefit out.

[VectisSaint]

I note there are a couple on here (out of hundreds!) who are obviously legal minds, hopefully they will grasp my layman version of events -

 

Law is black and white and fact-based, so forget, 'we deserve it', 'I'm tired of fighting it', 'let's just get on' etc.

We are all fed up with it BUT imo, you cannot meekly surrender ten points when a penalty has not been correctly applied, especially if it adds a year to a multi-million pound development plan.

That would be the equivalent of us conceding a dodgy last minute penalty that relegated us and saying,

'well we were rubbish all season so justice has sort-of been done by an appalling linesman's incorrect decision...'

 

 

Surely these are the facts for legal purposes -

The club has never been in administration.

The club did not miss paying wages (delayed but not missed).

The club is still trading.

 

And if the answer is 'but we will go into administration without a buyer' - Yes, and that is the time that the penalty applies - when it actually happens, and it hasn't.

 

 

Meaning that the league took poor legal advice, jumped the gun, and now has a problem, which they are trying to make ours.

People continue to see this as a Legal issue and therefore continue to miss the point. The issue is not "legal" it is an issue with regards to the rules of a Members Club. Those rules are set by the members (of whcih SFC was one, possibly isn't at the moment) and all members are bound by those rules. It has been demonstrated time and again in many sports that any court of arbitration or the like always (or nearly always) finds for the sporting body in question, because there is an understanding (and a perfectly reasonable one) that lawyers should not interfere with sporting regulations in any way. the only exception is where Clubs regulations would incite members to act illegally. To appeal against the 10 point deduction is completely futile, and is not the issue at hand. The issue is that our creditors have refused to sign a deal with Pinnacle until they have guarantees about our FL membership from the FL. This is what the FL are due to discuss today, and yes it probably depends on Pinnacle agreeing not to appeal, something which Pinnacle would be mad to do anyway because they would lose.

[Torres]

That's funny, because when we come out of admin we'll be debt free and the club will be sitting on a £30m stadium they've paid about £10m for..

 

 

So if it turns out that Pinnacle have paid all the debts in full the Football League will rescind our points deduction?

[CB Fry]

I note there are a couple on here (out of hundreds!) who are obviously legal minds, hopefully they will grasp my layman version of events -

 

Law is black and white and fact-based, so forget, 'we deserve it', 'I'm tired of fighting it', 'let's just get on' etc.

We are all fed up with it BUT imo, you cannot meekly surrender ten points when a penalty has not been correctly applied, especially if it adds a year to a multi-million pound development plan.

That would be the equivalent of us conceding a dodgy last minute penalty that relegated us and saying,

'well we were rubbish all season so justice has sort-of been done by an appalling linesman's incorrect decision...'

 

Err - when was the last time a "dodgy last minute penalty" was overturned and the club in question was then not relegated? You can't change those decisions, and we can't change this one.

 

This is the same - people have got it in their heads that we are appealing and we will get the ten points over turned tomorrow. We won't.

 

The best "win" we will get is some financial compensation two years down the line, after slogging our guts out in court for all that time. And a rule change which benefits us not a jot.

 

We are starting the season 10 points down, or we don't start the season in any league.

 

The football league are not discussing recinding the ten points.

 

If anything they are discussing what to do it SFC ceases to exist and whether to run with a 23 team league 1 next season, or promote someone from L2. Or they are discussing giving us a bigger deduction.

[CB Fry]

So if it turns out that Pinnacle have paid all the debts in full the Football League will rescind our points deduction?

 

 

They're stumping up £30m to pay the original mortgage now, are they?

[Burger]

Err - when was the last time a "dodgy last minute penalty" was overturned and the club in question was then not relegated? You can't change those decisions, and we can't change this one.

 

This is the same - people have got it in their heads that we are appealing and we will get the ten points over turned tomorrow. We won't.

 

The best "win" we will get is some financial compensation two years down the line, after slogging our guts out in court for all that time. And a rule change which benefits us not a jot.

 

We are starting the season 10 points down, or we don't start the season in any league.

 

The football league are not discussing recinding the ten points.

 

If anything they are discussing what to do it SFC ceases to exist and whether to run with a 23 team league 1 next season, or promote someone from L2. Or they are discussing giving us a bigger deduction.

 

that is exactly what I'm worried about - the bigger deduction and whether Pinnacle will pull out because of it

[Torbay Saint]

Err - when was the last time a "dodgy last minute penalty" was overturned and the club in question was then not relegated? You can't change those decisions, and we can't change this one.

 

This is the same - people have got it in their heads that we are appealing and we will get the ten points over turned tomorrow. We won't.

 

The best "win" we will get is some financial compensation two years down the line, after slogging our guts out in court for all that time. And a rule change which benefits us not a jot.

 

We are starting the season 10 points down, or we don't start the season in any league.

 

The football league are not discussing recinding the ten points.

 

If anything they are discussing what to do it SFC ceases to exist and whether to run with a 23 team league 1 next season, or promote someone from L2. Or they are discussing giving us a bigger deduction.

 

 

Why would they give us a bigger deduction when the discussion between the Football League has been with a group of people who don't own the football club as of yet. I could see you point if the deal had already been concluded, but it isn't.