Reasons for the drop-outs...

[StuRomseySaint]

So, I don't for one minute think it is simply a coincidence that Jacko's lot and Pinnacle have jumped ship on the same morning.

 

So what could the reasons be?

 

I think that Pinnacle's bidder jumped ship, possibly last week... and they desperately searched for a replacement and came up with that joker Fialka.

 

But why did both consortiums walk this morning?

 

The only reason I can think of is that Fry made both aware that their offers where never going to be enough to satisfy the CVA, and possible financial irregularities... meaning that we could be looking at -30 next season and almost certain relegation to L2.... which blows out any chance of a '5 year plan'

 

I don't believe Jacksons lot were chancers... maybe they picked the wrong man to be the public face?

 

I don't believe Pinnacle were chancers... at least until their 'substantial wealth' individual undoubtably backed out last week ( I still think it was Lloyd-Webber or Tabor )

 

It does now pose the question.... -30 in League 1 next season, or fresh start in the Blue Square Premier?

 

Personally I would go for fresh start, I am completely f*cked off with all of this and almost beyond the point of caring.

[lee_saint]

So, I don't for one minute think it is simply a coincidence that Jacko's lot and Pinnacle have jumped ship on the same morning.

 

So what could the reasons be?

 

I think that Pinnacle's bidder jumped ship, possibly last week... and they desperately searched for a replacement and came up with that joker Fialka.

 

But why did both consortiums walk this morning?

 

The only reason I can think of is that Fry made both aware that their offers where never going to be enough to satisfy the CVA, and possible financial irregularities... meaning that we could be looking at -30 next season and almost certain relegation to L2.... which blows out any chance of a '5 year plan'

 

I don't believe Jacksons lot were chancers... maybe they picked the wrong man to be the public face?

 

I don't believe Pinnacle were chancers... at least until their 'substantial wealth' individual undoubtably backed out last week ( I still think it was Lloyd-Webber or Tabor )

 

It does now pose the question.... -30 in League 1 next season, or fresh start in the Blue Square Premier?

 

Personally I would go for fresh start, I am completely f*cked off with all of this and almost beyond the point of caring.

 

100% agree.

[Webby]

I would choose -30 in L1. Simply because you'd still be able to attract certain players to a L1 club than a BLSQ club. Plus, we may avoid relegation.

[Rocker268]

I would rather start in L1 and build to stay up rather than start from scratch, wasn't that a few peoples thinking with admin? Although a fresh start does sound good in reality it would be too difficult, I doubt that anyone currently at the club would stay and we would have to skip the coming season and start afresh next summer IMO.

Otherwise I agree completely something is up that we aren't being told

[Pip]

Where do we get onto -30 now? I know we're panicking but do these figures have any foundation?

[so22saint]

I'm totally ****ed off with the whole thing as well, but -30 and L1 for me - there's a fair chance that at least 2 other L1 clubs go under and don't get CVA. If there's a 3rd then we have a real chance

[Marsdinho]

At least starting in L1 with -30 means that, within a year we, will be in L2.

 

If we start in the BSP, where will we be in a years time.

[StuRomseySaint]

I would choose -30 in L1. Simply because you'd still be able to attract certain players to a L1 club than a BLSQ club. Plus, we may avoid relegation.

 

You can only attract players prepared to play / good enough to play in each division.

 

-30 in L1 ... You will attract sub-standard L1 players or 'better' L2 players.

 

Blue Square Premier - You will attract the very best non-league players and even some league journeymen wanting one last swansong.

 

So, comparitively, you are much more likely to win games in the Blue Square than you are in League 1.

[CB Fry]

So, I don't for one minute think it is simply a coincidence that Jacko's lot and Pinnacle have jumped ship on the same morning.

 

So what could the reasons be?

 

I think that Pinnacle's bidder jumped ship, possibly last week... and they desperately searched for a replacement and came up with that joker Fialka.

 

But why did both consortiums walk this morning?

 

The only reason I can think of is that Fry made both aware that their offers where never going to be enough to satisfy the CVA, and possible financial irregularities... meaning that we could be looking at -30 next season and almost certain relegation to L2.... which blows out any chance of a '5 year plan'

 

I don't believe Jacksons lot were chancers... maybe they picked the wrong man to be the public face?

 

I don't believe Pinnacle were chancers... at least until their 'substantial wealth' individual undoubtably backed out last week ( I still think it was Lloyd-Webber or Tabor )

 

It does now pose the question.... -30 in League 1 next season, or fresh start in the Blue Square Premier?

 

Personally I would go for fresh start, I am completely f*cked off with all of this and almost beyond the point of caring.

 

 

Sorry, don't buy it.

 

If that was the case then Lynham and Jackson have got the greatest get out of free card in the world.

 

If we were about to be deducted 30 points and Pinnacle and Wacko were told that we'd know about it, South Today would have led on it and it would be all over the Echo website , Sky Sports News and Talksport like sh*t on a pensioner's blanket.

 

Pinnacle clearly built their whole plan by telling their mystery backer "we can get out of the 10 point thing" which was utterly deluded and they dragged it on and on as long as they could, built on ridiculous hope.

 

Wacko Jacko probably got wind of the Pinnacle bail and got out before he was expected to do anything on his fantasy. He is an idiot.

 

And anyway, failing to comply with a CVA is simply "not having enough money to run the business". Its not about points deductions - if they can't comply with a CVA they can't run the bloody club.

 

I'm saying chancers, the pair of them.

[StuRomseySaint]

Where do we get onto -30 now? I know we're panicking but do these figures have any foundation?

 

I am speculating on the reasons that the two main consortiums have both run away this morning... it has to be more than a coincidence.

 

No CVA and even minor financial irregularities will mean that we start on -30, if we use Luton as an example.

 

We know that the Football League were looking into the accounts of SFC Ltd and SLH.... what did they find? Could this be the reason about the 'Football League not playing ball' ?

[Barney Trubble]

The way I feel about the whole situation leads me down the path of the Blue Square Premier. I just feel like making that clean break and enjoying football and SFC again away from the circus we have become.

 

I mean, how many false dawns or loony ****s can one club have connected with them?

 

We seem to have opened up a vicious Pandora's box.

[Pat from Poole]

So, I don't for one minute think it is simply a coincidence that Jacko's lot and Pinnacle have jumped ship on the same morning.

 

So what could the reasons be?

 

I think that Pinnacle's bidder jumped ship, possibly last week... and they desperately searched for a replacement and came up with that joker Fialka.

 

But why did both consortiums walk this morning?

 

The only reason I can think of is that Fry made both aware that their offers where never going to be enough to satisfy the CVA, and possible financial irregularities... meaning that we could be looking at -30 next season and almost certain relegation to L2.... which blows out any chance of a '5 year plan'

 

I don't believe Jacksons lot were chancers... maybe they picked the wrong man to be the public face?

 

I don't believe Pinnacle were chancers... at least until their 'substantial wealth' individual undoubtably backed out last week ( I still think it was Lloyd-Webber or Tabor )

 

It does now pose the question.... -30 in League 1 next season, or fresh start in the Blue Square Premier?

 

Personally I would go for fresh start, I am completely f*cked off with all of this and almost beyond the point of caring.

 

 

Isn't it -25?

 

Take your point though. Bournemouth only managed to stay up starting on -17 as only two teams went down, and there were truly sh1te teams at the bottom of their League. League 1 looks on the strong side this season.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

failing to comply with a CVA is simply "not having enough money to run the business". Its not about points deductions - if they can't comply with a CVA they can't run the bloody club.

 

If your initial forecasts were based on appeal, which you genuinely believed you would win based on information gained from the legal profession, progress in that league by default increased attendance figures etc..... its easy to see how a business plan would fail if the very foundation was flaw

[Fan The Flames]

It easy to assume that MJ pulled out because it was fast approaching put up or shut up time. Why Pinnancle pulled out is still unknown, if they were time wasters they wouldn't have gone into exclusivity.

[Flyer]

It easy to assume that MJ pulled out because it was fast approaching put up or shut up time. Why Pinnancle pulled out is still unknown, if they were time wasters they wouldn't have gone into exclusivity.

 

But they got someone else to pay for it. Thats when I knew they were tyre kickers.

 

If they were serious, they would have put up their own money.

[Cabrone]

We were in the prem 4 years ago and now we are talking about the blue sq prem.

 

This feels surreal.

[Mole]

But why did both consortiums walk this morning?

 

Southampton City council refused Jacko permision to build a neverland ranch on the waterfront. Then the surveyors reported the shale sub soil meant the princess towers would fall over. If that wasn't enough the New Forest forestry comisions refused to fell 12,000 mature Oaks to build the Gummi bear log flume. And to cap it all the dinosaur park wasn't granted planning permsion due to complaints from the residents of Albion Towers citing it'd be a blot on the landscape.

[VectisSaint]

I am speculating ...

No CVA and even minor financial irregularities will mean that we start on -30, if we use Luton as an example.

Stu, sorry but this is just bull****. Have you actually checked out why Luton were given a 30 point deduction. Well the facts are:

(1) 10 points were initially deducted by the Football Association (not the FL) as a result of 15 charges for improper use of agents. Nothing to do with Admin or even the Football League

(2) Independently of this the FL then docked them 20 points, and justified the huge penalty because this was the 3rd time that Luton had been into and come out of administration. Thats right the 3RD TIME.

 

Luton's final CVA incidentally was based on a payment to creditors of 18 pence in the £, whereas I suspect that we had been planning 100% payment (at least to Barclays).

 

I know the FL can do whatever they want (as I ahve espoused many times on here), but if Luton is a precedent, then anything more than another 10 points (20 in total) would be pushing even the FL credibility beyond the realsm of reasonableness.

 

Most likely is another 7 points, as with Bournemouth and Rotherham.

[buctootim]

I agree its not coincidence that Pinnacle and Jackson went on the same day - but I think they were pushed -not jumped. Fry, imo has a better option and doesnt need to **** around with bids which have no chance.

 

The big questions now are 1. whether the major creditors are prepared to accept anything less than the breakup value 2. whether the successful bidders are genuinely interested in rebuilding the club or buying the assets cheap, running the club for a bit, hoping for success but knowing that they have a 'no loss' out should they need it in a couple of years ala Archer at Brighton.

[VectisSaint]

We were in the prem 4 years ago and now we are talking about the blue sq prem.

 

This feels surreal.

There is no way we will be in the BSP. You need to face up to the fact that we will be in L1 or nowhere next season. The BSP will not have us at this stage. We could possibly get in the Wessex League, but suspect its too late even for that.

[aintforever]

Stu, sorry but this is just bull****. Have you actually checked out why Luton were given a 30 point deduction. Well the facts are:

(1) 10 points were initially deducted by the Football Association (not the FL) as a result of 15 charges for improper use of agents. Nothing to do with Admin or even the Football League

(2) Independently of this the FL then docked them 20 points, and justified the huge penalty because this was the 3rd time that Luton had been into and come out of administration. Thats right the 3RD TIME.

 

Luton's final CVA incidentally was based on a payment to creditors of 18 pence in the £, whereas I suspect that we had been planning 100% payment (at least to Barclays).

 

I know the FL can do whatever they want (as I ahve espoused many times on here), but if Luton is a precedent, then anything more than another 10 points (20 in total) would be pushing even the FL credibility beyond the realsm of reasonableness.

 

Most likely is another 7 points, as with Bournemouth and Rotherham.

 

Bournemouth were deducted 27 points in total, -10 when they were in League 1 and -17 the following season in League 2 because they couldn't agree a CVA. It would have been -15 but they have been in receivership before so the League bunged another two on top.

 

We would be looking at -25 max, I think we should avoid the extra 15 though - hopefully.

[graymalkin33]

This is my understanding of the situation.

 

SLH is in administration legally speaking.

The F.L didnt buy it and gave SFC the -10 pt deduction

A buyer found and wanted to appeal the -10 pts.

This was declined.

The buyer then says ok well we are ready to complete the purchase.

The F.L then ask SFC for a CVA. This proves that the club has paid its creditors and all are happy.

However, SFC cannot provide a CVA because SFC is not in administration.

Only SLH can provide a CVA but the F.L say no the CVA has to come from SFC.

Technically this is not possible.

So SFC face another 17 pt deduction for not providing a CVA before the season starts.

 

This indeed would put any bidder off i feel because on -27 you would be looking at probable relegation so they wouldnt in effect be buying a League 1 side they would be buying a League 2 side.

 

The way around this is for SFC to be put into administration so they can then provide the CVA to the league. But then the league already say SFC are in administration.... kind of a catch 22.

 

I am not sure how you get out of this......

 

Anyway thats just my theory

[StuRomseySaint]

Stu, sorry but this is just bull****. Have you actually checked out why Luton were given a 30 point deduction. Well the facts are:

(1) 10 points were initially deducted by the Football Association (not the FL) as a result of 15 charges for improper use of agents. Nothing to do with Admin or even the Football League

(2) Independently of this the FL then docked them 20 points, and justified the huge penalty because this was the 3rd time that Luton had been into and come out of administration. Thats right the 3RD TIME.

 

Luton's final CVA incidentally was based on a payment to creditors of 18 pence in the £, whereas I suspect that we had been planning 100% payment (at least to Barclays).

 

I know the FL can do whatever they want (as I ahve espoused many times on here), but if Luton is a precedent, then anything more than another 10 points (20 in total) would be pushing even the FL credibility beyond the realsm of reasonableness.

 

Most likely is another 7 points, as with Bournemouth and Rotherham.

 

All these numbers, it's getting confusing... please allow me to start again.

 

Now, the punishment for entering administration and failing to provide a CVA is...

 

-10 for the administration.

 

-17 for the CVA

 

So that's -27... feel free to add a couple extra if there are any irregularities.

 

Do you think that the Leagues response ( which was due today, wasn't it? ) stated that the creditors had voted on the terms and agreed that no CVA would be granted, so -27 is a definate under the current terms of both parties bid?

Edited 30 June, 2009 by StuRomseySaint

[aintforever]

This is my understanding of the situation.

 

SLH is in administration legally speaking.

The F.L didnt buy it and gave SFC the -10 pt deduction

A buyer found and wanted to appeal the -10 pts.

This was declined.

The buyer then says ok well we are ready to complete the purchase.

The F.L then ask SFC for a CVA. This proves that the club has paid its creditors and all are happy.

However, SFC cannot provide a CVA because SFC is not in administration.

Only SLH can provide a CVA but the F.L say no the CVA has to come from SFC.

Technically this is not possible.

So SFC face another 17 pt deduction for not providing a CVA before the season starts.

 

This indeed would put any bidder off i feel because on -27 you would be looking at probable relegation so they wouldnt in effect be buying a League 1 side they would be buying a League 2 side.

 

The way around this is for SFC to be put into administration so they can then provide the CVA to the league. But then the league already say SFC are in administration.... kind of a catch 22.

 

I am not sure how you get out of this......

 

Anyway thats just my theory

 

But surely as the League decided SFC and SLH are linked then if SLH gets a CVA then SFC should avoid the -15?

[Fan The Flames]

There is no way we will be in the BSP. You need to face up to the fact that we will be in L1 or nowhere next season. The BSP will not have us at this stage. We could possibly get in the Wessex League, but suspect its too late even for that.

 

I think there is every opportunity we could join the BSP next season if it all goes tits up. I reckon they would just let us join as an extra team, good for their profile and gate receipts.

[Kadeem Hardison]

Personally I would go for fresh start, I am completely f*cked off with all of this and almost beyond the point of caring.

 

Lightweight. What a bunch of cry babies you are. Giving up on the club and starting again because it hasn't gone your way. Grow a pair.

[Mole]

There is no way we will be in the BSP. You need to face up to the fact that we will be in L1 or nowhere next season. The BSP will not have us at this stage. We could possibly get in the Wessex League, but suspect its too late even for that.

 

If the worst came to the worst we'd amalgamate with Eastleigh.

[benjii]

But surely as the League decided SFC and SLH are linked then if SLH gets a CVA then SFC should avoid the -15?

 

SLH won't have a CVA - it will be wound up.

 

No one wants to buy the PLC, they want to buy its assets.

[krissyboy31]

But surely as the League decided SFC and SLH are linked then if SLH gets a CVA then SFC should avoid the -15?

 

Yes but the buyer is not buying SLH, he is buying the assets of SLH and SLH would cease to exist when they take over.

[aintforever]

Yes but the buyer is not buying SLH, he is buying the assets of SLH and SLH would cease to exist when they take over.

 

But won't the creditors have to agree to the deal before it goes ahead - if a deal goes ahead?

[Fan The Flames]

But surely as the League decided SFC and SLH are linked then if SLH gets a CVA then SFC should avoid the -15?

 

But SLH can not provide a CVA because it is wound up hence the catch 22.

 

However I think that this theory would hold some water only if Pinnacle came out and said this was the reason, but they are not because maybe this will force the FL to say what the real reason was ie imo not enough cash.

[benjii]

But won't the creditors have to agree to the deal before it goes ahead - if a deal goes ahead?

 

Yes, but a CVA is a different thing. It is a mechanism for exiting/avoiding insolvency. The fact that the FL's rules demand one (apparently, I can't be arsed to actually check this point!) only goes to show that they clearly hadn't envisgaed our scenario when they drafted them.

 

To be honest; I think this is a moot point as I would imagine that SFC Ltd could be sold follwing a pre-pack administration of its own. I may well be wrong.

 

If there's no one with any cash interested then it certainly is all a moot point!

[krissyboy31]

But won't the creditors have to agree to the deal before it goes ahead - if a deal goes ahead?

 

If the PLC was being rescued then it would have to have an agreed CVA but because the administrator is selling off individual assets, as long as they are paying the agreed amount there wouldn't be a CVA. Remember, it could be any number of buyers purchasing individual assets. It just so happens that all of the bids on the table so far have been looking to buy all of the assets.

[StuRomseySaint]

Yes, but a CVA is a different thing. It is a mechanism for exiting/avoiding insolvency. The fact that the FL's rules demand one (apparently, I can't be arsed to actually check this point!) only goes to show that they clearly hadn't envisgaed our scenario when they drafted them.

 

To be honest; I think this is a moot point as I would imagine that SFC Ltd could be sold follwing a pre-pack administration of its own. I may well be wrong.

 

If there's no one with any cash interested then it certainly is all a moot point!

 

If SLH was wound up... then isn't one of it's assets SFC Ltd... which could be sold to someone for a fee, which will go into the pot to pay the creditors of SLH? This is how I see it and this would see us relegated 2 further divisions.

[aintforever]

Couldn't Fry sell off certain assets of the PLC, then whoever's buying the club could take what's left of the PLC (effectively just the club) out of administration with a CVA?

[krissyboy31]

But SLH can not provide a CVA because it is wound up hence the catch 22.

 

However I think that this theory would hold some water only if Pinnacle came out and said this was the reason, but they are not because maybe this will force the FL to say what the real reason was ie imo not enough cash.

 

It's still my opinion that the original bid was legit but the real money man/men pulled out when they found out about this. That IMO is why they were so keen to appeal the 10 points, because without being able to fight that, they wouldn't be able to fight this ruling.

[Whitey Grandad]

mmm... according to the League SLH and SFC are 'inextricably linked'. 'Inexctricably' means 'cannot be separated from one another' so if SLH can go down the drain yet SFC, the Stadium Company, and other entities can be hived off, i.e. sold as individual assets, then these bodies have been 'extricated' from each other. If this can happen, then the League's original ruling may be invalid.

[buctootim]

mmm... according to the League SLH and SFC are 'inextricably linked'. 'Inexctricably' means 'cannot be separated from one another' so if SLH can go down the drain yet SFC, the Stadium Company, and other entities can be hived off, i.e. sold as individual assets, then these bodies have been 'extricated' from each other. If this can happen, then the League's original ruling may be invalid.

 

 

Very interesting thought.

[krissyboy31]

mmm... according to the League SLH and SFC are 'inextricably linked'. 'Inexctricably' means 'cannot be separated from one another' so if SLH can go down the drain yet SFC, the Stadium Company, and other entities can be hived off, i.e. sold as individual assets, then these bodies have been 'extricated' from each other. If this can happen, then the League's original ruling may be invalid.

 

And that's why Fry et al was sure that an appeal would rule in our favour and presumably why the FL was so keen to refuse us the right of appeal.

[Fan The Flames]

Inextricably linked, doesn't that mean that one can not survive with out the other. However it doesn't mean that things couldn't be altered so they could. So as we were set up one needed the other to survive, but this relationship could be altered and in doing so doesn't make them not inextricably linked in the past

[buctootim]

And that's why Fry et al was sure that an appeal would rule in our favour and presumably why the FL was so keen to refuse us the right of appeal.

 

Not quite. First you need to extricate them - ie actually sell the companies / assets . When you've done that you can go back and have the original ruling set aside IMO - mid season if necessary - on the grounds that original ruling was flawed - rendering an appeal unccessary.

[Fan The Flames]

However the FL famously lost a lot of money pursuing Granada and Carlton through the courts by claiming they were inextricably linked to the belly up ITV Sport (or whatever it was called). Only to be ruled against, so their judgement or legal advice isn't water tight.

[Fan The Flames]

Not quite. First you need to extricate them - ie actually sell the companies / assets . When you've done that you can go back and have the original ruling set aside IMO - mid season if necessary - on the grounds that original ruling was flawed - rendering an appeal unccessary.

 

So if the law of the land was to trump the law of the FL why didn't Pinnacle buy and proceed with litagation.

[buctootim]

So if the law of the land was to trump the law of the FL why didn't Pinnacle buy and proceed with litagation.

 

Because they dont have any money / or more charitably - they realised they had overbid.

[gonzo]

So if the law of the land was to trump the law of the FL why didn't Pinnacle buy and proceed with litagation.

 

Because they didn't have the backing to go through with the deal. Whether they had at the beginning is debatable, but by the end it was all a charade.

[Draino76]

Just give the FL the CVA of SLH, as we all know they are inextricably linked. Cheers.

[Smirking_Saint]

Because they dont have any money / or more charitably - they realised they had overbid.

 

Probably the number 1 reason, IMO.

 

Hopefully we won't see these timewasters again.... however, i would not bet on it.

[Fan The Flames]

Because they dont have any money / or more charitably - they realised they had overbid.

 

It all points back to them not having enough cash, hence the FL statement 'The Football League has the responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season with certainty as regards the competition they compete in'.

[buctootim]

It all points back to them not having enough cash, hence the FL statement 'The Football League has the responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season with certainty as regards the competition they compete in'.

 

Yes - which fits in with the rumours that the Swiss promised more upfront (ie real hard cash) whereas Pinnacle promised more long term from future profits. It looks to me as though the FL didnt believe Pinnacle's business plan was deliverable.

[LostBoys]

So, I don't for one minute think it is simply a coincidence that Jacko's lot and Pinnacle have jumped ship on the same morning.

 

So what could the reasons be?

 

I think that Pinnacle's bidder jumped ship, possibly last week... and they desperately searched for a replacement and came up with that joker Fialka.

 

But why did both consortiums walk this morning?

 

The only reason I can think of is that Fry made both aware that their offers where never going to be enough to satisfy the CVA, and possible financial irregularities... meaning that we could be looking at -30 next season and almost certain relegation to L2.... which blows out any chance of a '5 year plan'

 

I don't believe Jacksons lot were chancers... maybe they picked the wrong man to be the public face?

 

I don't believe Pinnacle were chancers... at least until their 'substantial wealth' individual undoubtably backed out last week ( I still think it was Lloyd-Webber or Tabor )

 

It does now pose the question.... -30 in League 1 next season, or fresh start in the Blue Square Premier?

 

Personally I would go for fresh start, I am completely f*cked off with all of this and almost beyond the point of caring.

 

I think you can conjecture all you want about the FL. The points removal were only ever an issue to reduce the risk of staying in L1. Pinnacle with flaky Fialka and joker Jacksons mob were both chancers trying to buy the club out of its own assets. Unfortunately for all of us the price required cannot be merited by a club in L1 and so you need a big slug of equity plus cover for the next season losses. Neither party had a pot to **** in and have now evaporated.