Jump to content

Football league


thorpie the sinner
 Share

Recommended Posts

As we are near extinction, I think it would be great to hear a statement from Football League saying where they stand on points issue. It would then be clear for any potential bidder. The last thing we need is murky waters when on Friday Fry could start selling off the silver individually!

 

It would also let us know once and for all whether pinnacle are hiding behind the technical issues as they say or struggling with the finances.

 

I think the fans are owed clarity from now on in what is the most vital week in our history!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I would say that the FL is unlikely to make a full public statement on this, although it would be very interesting to hear.

 

That said, I would not be at all surprised if the FL are playing hardball over the deduction. They did it with Leeds, Rotherham, Bournemouth and Luton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't really say that I was surprised by the points penalty and won't be if we were to incur more. That said I still feel we have to pray that the swiss are more prepared to move swiftly. If we have anyone interested in us they should know by now that the points will not be retracted under any circumstances. Therfore the issue should simply be how much they will have to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely there is no lack of clarity - we are -10 points or we don't play

But clearly that is not the point. We know we are -10 everyone knows that, always have. The sticking point is not the -10, it is the lack of right to appeal and the imposition of a further penalty when we cannot provide a CVA because we cannot come out of admin as we are not in it.

 

The FL will not issue any statement, they will have provided the information to the parties involved confidentially as any proper business people would do. The sooner people understand the FL owes nothing to supporters the sooner people will be clearer what is going on. The FL also owes nothing to Southampton, indeed they will probably lose no sleep whatsoever in seeing one of the founder members of the FA premier League going under. We are one of 22 clubs who brought the FL to their knees in 1991, there is no love lost between those 22 clubs and the FL. Leeds have already found this to their cost.

Edited by VectisSaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely there is no lack of clarity - we are -10 points or we don't play

 

 

I do not believe that that was the stumbling block, as MOST people would have accepted the - 10 point punishment

 

It HAD to be something else .....

 

WERE the FL going to impose ANOTHER - 15 points .... OR

 

Pinnacle no longer had the MONEY to complete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But clearly that is not the point. We know we are -10 everyone knows that, always have. The sticking point is not the -10, it is the lack of right to appeal and the imposition of a further penalty when we cannot provide a CVA because we cannot come out of admin as we are not in it.

 

The FL will not issue any statement, they will have provided the information to the parties involved confidentially as any proper business people would do. The sooner people understand the FL owes nothing to supporters the sooner people will be clearer what is going on. The FL also owes nothing to Southampton, indeed they will probably lose no sleep whatsoever in seeing one of the ounder members of the FA premier League going under. We are one of 22 clubs who brought the FL to their knees in 1991, there is no love lost between those 22 clubs and the FL. Leeds have already found this to their cost.

 

Good post. IMO the first point is the major sticking point for any of the remaining bids and the second point unforetunately may have some merit too. The FL would never admit it though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very sad indeed when the club has a Trust and a number of supporters groups, who hounded our previous chairmen and board members. Yet, to date, as far as I can recall, haven't stepped up, or, made any representation or requests to the Football League about our plight, or about requesting their help in resolving the points issue, or, any other issue, that has cropped up during this period of administration. Individuals have written or emailed the League, but again I've yet to see any replies. With whom lies the problem? The League, in not replying, or the supporters for not communicating on the subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very sad indeed when the club has a Trust and a number of supporters groups, who hounded our previous chairmen and board members. Yet, to date, as far as I can recall, haven't stepped up, or, made any representation or requests to the Football League about our plight, or about requesting their help in resolving the points issue, or, any other issue, that has cropped up during this period of administration. Individuals have written or emailed the League, but again I've yet to see any replies. With whom lies the problem? The League, in not replying, or the supporters for not communicating on the subject?

 

Problem is ART we have a divided fan base. Which as time goes by becomes more and more apparent. I'll bloody drop them an email if someone can give me a good addy to write to. Its only fair that they make there stand point known and what the hold up is from their standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But clearly that is not the point. We know we are -10 everyone knows that, always have. The sticking point is not the -10, it is the lack of right to appeal and the imposition of a further penalty when we cannot provide a CVA because we cannot come out of admin as we are not in it.

 

The FL will not issue any statement, they will have provided the information to the parties involved confidentially as any proper business people would do. The sooner people understand the FL owes nothing to supporters the sooner people will be clearer what is going on. The FL also owes nothing to Southampton, indeed they will probably lose no sleep whatsoever in seeing one of the ounder members of the FA premier League going under. We are one of 22 clubs who brought the FL to their knees in 1991, there is no love lost between those 22 clubs and the FL. Leeds have already found this to their cost.

 

 

Fair point but the truth of the matter is we have no evidence that the potential imposition of a further points deduction would be forthcoming, we are all making assumptions that this is the case.

 

What i find hard to understand is that IF the whole basis of any takeover falls or fails because the "blazers" at the FL are on a point of "dodgy" principle, happy to see a club go out of existence then I should think all the other members would be more than a little worried about their future and the future of football in under their stewardship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But clearly that is not the point. We know we are -10 everyone knows that, always have. The sticking point is not the -10, it is the lack of right to appeal and the imposition of a further penalty when we cannot provide a CVA because we cannot come out of admin as we are not in it.

 

The FL will not issue any statement, they will have provided the information to the parties involved confidentially as any proper business people would do. The sooner people understand the FL owes nothing to supporters the sooner people will be clearer what is going on. The FL also owes nothing to Southampton, indeed they will probably lose no sleep whatsoever in seeing one of the ounder members of the FA premier League going under. We are one of 22 clubs who brought the FL to their knees in 1991, there is no love lost between those 22 clubs and the FL. Leeds have already found this to their cost.

 

It would be perverse in the extreme were The Football League to apply an extra 15 point penalty for SLH getting a CVA but not SFC. Their own forensic accountants said the two companies are inextricably linked so they would have to accept a CVA for SLH as being a CVA for SFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be perverse in the extreme were The Football League to apply an extra 15 point penalty for SLH getting a CVA but not SFC. Their own forensic accountants said the two companies are inextricably linked so they would have to accept a CVA for SLH as being a CVA for SFC.

But thats the point that you are missing. SLH cannot provide a CVA either, because SLH will be liquidated. This is the big issue (not the -10). Those who follow what is happening realise that the FL by their perverse ruling have dug themselves into a corner, but that will not stop them fining us with a further points deduction. They require a CVA to avoid that deduction but legally no-one can provide a CVA, SLH because they are to be liquidated, SFC because they are not in administration. Catch 22, hence Pinnacle or anyone else cannot legally meet the requirements of the FL without having further points deducted. If they did provide a CVA it would be fraudulent. If they did not liquidate SLH and did provide a CVA that would cost and confirm to the FL that SLH/SFC was inextricably linked. The only way out of this is to reach an agreement with the FL not to impose the further penalty and that to my mind is what is holding up the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair point but the truth of the matter is we have no evidence that the potential imposition of a further points deduction would be forthcoming, we are all making assumptions that this is the case.

 

What i find hard to understand is that IF the whole basis of any takeover falls or fails because the "blazers" at the FL are on a point of "dodgy" principle, happy to see a club go out of existence then I should think all the other members would be more than a little worried about their future and the future of football in under their stewardship.

True, there is no evidence. Just like there is no evidence that Pinnacle are penniless chancers, or that there is a credible Swiss bid in the wings. But there have been plenty of hints about this from Pinnacle and Fry, making it quite clear that the 10 points is not the issue. It is however, one of the most likely scenarios, and is credible.

 

By the way you misunderstand about the Football League. The FL are not the blazer brigade, that is the Football Association. The FL has always been a professional organisation since its founding in 1888. It has often been at odds with the FA, initially because the FA were against professionalism in football. The FL do hold a grudge against the founder members of the FA Premier League, of that I am almost certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we are near extinction, I think it would be great to hear a statement from Football League saying where they stand on points issue. It would then be clear for any potential bidder. The last thing we need is murky waters when on Friday Fry could start selling off the silver individually!

 

It would also let us know once and for all whether pinnacle are hiding behind the technical issues as they say or struggling with the finances.

 

I think the fans are owed clarity from now on in what is the most vital week in our history!

 

Simon, I understand there were 8 pages of conditions from the league. That sounds pretty damn complicated to me. Just maybe, Pinnacle do have a beef.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But thats the point that you are missing. SLH cannot provide a CVA either, because SLH will be liquidated. This is the big issue (not the -10). Those who follow what is happening realise that the FL by their perverse ruling have dug themselves into a corner, but that will not stop them fining us with a further points deduction. They require a CVA to avoid that deduction but legally no-one can provide a CVA, SLH because they are to be liquidated, SFC because they are not in administration. Catch 22, hence Pinnacle or anyone else cannot legally meet the requirements of the FL without having further points deducted. If they did provide a CVA it would be fraudulent. If they did not liquidate SLH and did provide a CVA that would cost and confirm to the FL that SLH/SFC was inextricably linked. The only way out of this is to reach an agreement with the FL not to impose the further penalty and that to my mind is what is holding up the deal.

 

This bamboozles me. As it seems like a technical Catch 22 as you say.

 

Wouldn't a solution be for Pinnacle to NOT liquidate SLH, but to keep it running as a shell company and a subsidiary of Fialka Enterprises ?

 

Is it strictly necessary to liquidate SLH if this risks any sort of jobsworth further penalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...