trousers Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Apologies if this has already been clarified elsewhere, and for starting yet another takeover related thread, but having just re-read the Football League statement posted on their website on Monday, I can't work out what they mean by their 2nd paragraph....here's the full statement: BOARD STATEMENT ON SOUTHAMPTON Posted on: 22.06.2009 The Board of The Football League met today to consider representations from the 'Pinnacle Group' with regard to their proposed takeover of Southampton Football Club. The Football League has the responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season with certainty as regards the competition they compete in. With that in mind, The Football League has responded directly to the Pinnacle Group, and will continue to liaise with their representatives going forward. Does that middle paragraph suggest/imply that the dispute is over which League we actually end up starting in? In other words, do the Football League have yet more sanctions up their sleeves which could mean us starting in League Two? Their statement is not about certainty regarding how many points we start on but "certainty" about what "competition" we compete in.... Can someone clarify what they mean? No wonder Lynam is fighting this tooth and nail if the FL aren't ruling out us starting in League Two.... Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Would mess up fixture lists from the Premiership down if they did put us in League Two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 June, 2009 (edited) Would mess up fixture lists from the Premiership down if they did put us in League Two. Indeed. Totally agree. But that's my point....what does their statement mean when they say they need to 'ensure certainty' about what competition we compete in? Why does Pinnacle's action lead them to question the position about what competition we're in? Edited 24 June, 2009 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 The Football League has the responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season with certainty as regards the competition they compete in. I read it as... The Football League has the responsibility to ensure all teams in League One start the season with certainty as to where they stand in League One. Trousers reads... Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Indeed. Totally agree. But that's my point....what does their statement mean when they say they need to 'ensure certainty' about what competition we compete in? Why does Pinnacle's action lead them to question the position about what competition we're in? I don't think the FL probably know what the statement means. Isn't clear at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 If we start with -10 and are given the right of appeal it leaves uncertainy affecting the whole league. The FL want it sorted before the fixtures start. That is my take on the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 June, 2009 The Football League has the responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season with certainty as regards the competition they compete in. I read it as... The Football League has the responsibility to ensure all teams in League One start the season with certainty as to where they stand in League One. Trousers reads... Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Thanks. I've submitted the FL statement to these chaps: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 I also found this part of the statement strange. UmP and I were discussing this a couple of days ago and he thought this might relate to the possible alternative of starting next season in League 2 with no deductions, as was apparently offered to Leeds, although in their case they were a completely new company whereas we would continue with the existing one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 June, 2009 The Football League has the responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season with certainty as regards the competition they compete in. I read it as... The Football League has the responsibility to ensure all teams in League One start the season with certainty as to where they stand in League One. Ok, so the FL are saying to Pinnacle (perhaps): "Ok, you've got a good case BUT if we give you the right to appeal it will take longer than between now and the start of the season to resolve due to length of the appeal process and that's why we can't agree to an appeal" So, in other words, the FL aren't (possibly) dismissing the right to appeal in principle, rather they are saying there isn't enough time to go through the appeal process any more.... I can sort of see where they are coming from if that's the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Trousers reads... Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Conspiracy theory. Semantics. Half baked theories. Ahh but you didn't hyphenate the Half and baked. Does that make it a name instead? It must be a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Ok, so the FL are saying to Pinnacle (perhaps): "Ok, you've got a good case BUT if we give you the right to appeal it will take longer than between now and the start of the season to resolve due to length of the appeal process and that's why we can't agree to an appeal" So, in other words, the FL aren't (possibly) dismissing the right to appeal in principle, rather they are saying there isn't enough time to go through the appeal process any more.... I can sort of see where they are coming from if that's the case But the -10 points would have no effect until nearer the end of the season. Are they expecting the process to take longer than that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Ok, so the FL are saying to Pinnacle (perhaps): "Ok, you've got a good case BUT if we give you the right to appeal it will take longer than between now and the start of the season to resolve due to length of the appeal process and that's why we can't agree to an appeal" So, in other words, the FL aren't (possibly) dismissing the right to appeal in principle, rather they are saying there isn't enough time to go through the appeal process any more.... I can sort of see where they are coming from if that's the case Well if they have thought about it long enough to think we have a good case and the original ruling is unfair they should just overturn it or speed up the appeal process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Irish O'REILLY Heinz baked beans.....We will have more big FARTS on the board.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 just fancy talk for whether we start in division 1 on -10, 0 or something else - but still league 1. and like the rest of the statement, its extremely general as if they're trotting out their well-established (!) policy for all three leagues - hence the ambiguity. I assume competition refers to the terms and conditions, the penalties and constraints, we have to sign up to and abide by before we can compete - like the 'nature of the competition'. Now if league was switched for competition, i would be worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 June, 2009 But the -10 points would have no effect until nearer the end of the season. Are they expecting the process to take longer than that? I was thinking the same too. Would we (SFC) 'care' if we didn't know what points any other club was starting on? I wouldn't. As you say, it doesn't matter at this stage of the season whereas the Football League are saying it does matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third Division South Days Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Ok, so the FL are saying to Pinnacle (perhaps): "Ok, you've got a good case BUT if we give you the right to appeal it will take longer than between now and the start of the season to resolve due to length of the appeal process and that's why we can't agree to an appeal" So, in other words, the FL aren't (possibly) dismissing the right to appeal in principle, rather they are saying there isn't enough time to go through the appeal process any more.... I can sort of see where they are coming from if that's the case Could someone explain to me why the 10 point penalty was not appealed immediately. SFC were a trading company with a board of directors. The issue would have been resolved weeks ago and we would not now be in this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Could someone explain to me why the 10 point penalty was not appealed immediately. SFC were a trading company with a board of directors. The issue would have been resolved weeks ago and we would not now be in this mess. There was some comment from Fry at the time to the effect that we had lodged an intention to appeal, or similar. As I remember, the wording was so that new owners would have the option of appealing. (I nearly wrote 'an appealing option'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Could someone explain to me why the 10 point penalty was not appealed immediately. SFC were a trading company with a board of directors. The issue would have been resolved weeks ago and we would not now be in this mess. Very good question. Someone on here ( ) has been banging on about what the 'current' SFC Ltd board has been doing this last 2 - 3 months....there must be a simple explanation for the inactivity on instigating the actual appeal process in that time....what harm would it have done for Tointon or Jones to have filled out a form and sent it to the FL straight after that TV interview with Malwhinny where he said the club could appeal ? At least the wheels would have been in motion long before now... Something doesn't add up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Very good question. Someone on here ( ) has been banging on about what the 'current' SFC Ltd board has been doing this last 2 - 3 months....there must be a simple explanation for the inactivity on instigating the actual appeal process in that time....what harm would it have done for Tointon or Jones to have filled out a form and sent it to the FL straight after that TV interview with Malwhinny where he said the club could appeal ? At least the wheels would have been in motion long before now... Something doesn't add up Would it have potentially committed the club to legal fees that could not be justified by Fry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Would it have potentially committed the club to legal fees that could not be justified by Fry? Fair point. I'd have still filled out, and sent off, the appeal form to at least get an appeal reference number from the FL....just to get a foot in the door in case Malwhinny changed his mind about accepting an appeal.....Ah...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 They've obviously designed the statement to be as vague, ambiguous and wordy as possible, in order to allow them the maximum possible number of options in their eventual decision. Like Crouch basically saying we set the club up to cheat the system and Mawhinney saying we have the right to appeal, any unequivocal statement is a weakness to be exploited by the other side. Vague, meandering, multiple-meaning statements like one which says "we want the other clubs to know where they stand" but also implies "you lot might yet end up in League Two" are where it's at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third Division South Days Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 There was some comment from Fry at the time to the effect that we had lodged an intention to appeal, or similar. As I remember, the wording was so that new owners would have the option of appealing. (I nearly wrote 'an appealing option'). If this is so you would have thought there would have been some sort of agreement from the FL. I learnt decades ago to get things in writing. It really does look a ****up caused by Fry and the SFC directors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third Division South Days Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Would it have potentially committed the club to legal fees that could not be justified by Fry? Surely the club without a points penalty would be easier to market and possibly fetch a higher price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Surely the club without a points penalty would be easier to market and possibly fetch a higher price? Indeed. A bit like buying a house with planning permission for an extension already in place, or some way down the approval process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 Surely the club without a points penalty would be easier to market and possibly fetch a higher price? True but is it right for the administrator to gamble with the creditor's money on this? As I think we've seen from the FL's position, Fry would have lost the creditor's money on this. But as Trousers said below, if possible without incurring significant expense, I would have been inclined to have at least kept the door open by going through the first stage of paperwork. 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