scottzoo Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 Do people understand this .Luton were deducted 20 points and a further 10 points by the FA . What possibility that the league will not deduct us points but the FA may , this will cover all bases me thinks we escape via loophole but Fa get in on the act like they did with Luton. your thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 Do people understand this .Luton were deducted 20 points and a further 10 points by the FA . What possibility that the league will not deduct us points but the FA may , this will cover all bases me thinks we escape via loophole but Fa get in on the act like they did with Luton. your thoughts No!! In English please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 Do people understand this .Luton were deducted 20 points and a further 10 points by the FA . What possibility that the league will not deduct us points but the FA may , this will cover all bases me thinks we escape via loophole but Fa get in on the act like they did with Luton. your thoughts They won't want to be sued either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 A holding company won't make a blind bit of difference, it has to be a quoted public company. According to the Football League Rules, what is different about a quoted plc holding co going into administration compared to a limited company holding co going into administration, where in both cases the football club is a limited company subsidiary and holds the golden share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 (edited) According to the Football League Rules, what is different about a quoted plc holding co going into administration compared to a limited company holding co going into administration, where in both cases the football club is a limited company subsidiary and holds the golden share? Whitewash alert! The quoted plc is not subservient to the league as under law it cannot give up it's right to sue the league. The private company gives up that right as SFC did, but it's not in administration. The reason we are set up like this is that in 1997 the FA/league would not accept SFC as a public company and insisted they set up a separate, independent company subservient to their rule of no legal redress only grievance procedures. The league have set up the enquiry to duck making the decision that their lawyers after a week of studying the rules have concluded. When the independent lawyers come to the same conclusion as their lawyers and the administrators/club's lawyers have already come to, they can hold up their hands in mock horror and promise to close the loophole, forgetting of course that they and their rules caused the problem in the first place. If they try to pull the 'make it up on the hoof' scam they will be sued by the new owners because of the financial implications and they know it. Edited 9 April, 2009 by derry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 So do limited company holding companies have to give up a "right to sue"? Didn't know that. Which rules are they? Football League Rules? On your final point, I don't really see how new owners can sue if they took over after points have been deducted, i.e. they knew what they were getting into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtonesfc Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 Wes, no surprises there, will all clubs who have been deducted points please from an orderly queue. In the meantime all Football Club Chairman are busily restructuring their clubs and creating Holding Companies with fancy names. The winners it seems will be forensic accountants presumably these are accountants who simply know what they are doing. For once i agree with 19/sundance breast!"presumably "= in football league interest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 Whitewash alert! Just noticed this as well, presumably your edit. No matter. Not sure what you are referring to here - my question is not about financial assistance/security/share buybacks or anything like that, it is exactly as it says. Also interested btw as to where, under law, it says a quoted plc cannot give up its right to sue the League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 I'm delighted that stevegrant has proven to my satisfaction for one that Luton's situation is totally different from ours, especially if it was the club with the debt and not the holding company. It is inherent upon the FA to close this loophole so that no other club can take advantage of it, but as far as I'm aware, there can be no retrospective action taken against those who have exploited a loophole. Undoubtedly Luton's bluster will attempt to apply pressure on the FA to punish us as they were punished, but if Steve is correct, then there is no way that any legal action will prevail. On the other hand, we might well have good grounds for legal as far as I can see if we were to be deducted points. Wes, I'm sure I read somewhere that there is one of those catch all 'reserve the right' clauses in the FL's rules, which basically would allow the FL to punish the club without having to apply any rules retrospectively if they felt we didn't act within the spirit of the rules. I don't recall teh exact wording but hopefully you catchmy drift and in this instacce we may have grounds to fight the decision on a legal basis but without a pot to p1ss in we may just have to open wide and take the medicine. I personally don't take any comfort from any other threatened legal action and penalised clubs undoubtedly will try it on if they can afford it. I think that 'we reserve the right to do what we like' clause will be our undoing and Malwhinney will find us guilty and deduct points under their get out of jail card whilst closing the loophole. He will be hammered in the media otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSFC Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 Just reported in thr last half hour:- Luton director Stephen Browne admits the club are prepared to take legal action against the Football League if they fail to dock points from Southampton. The Saints' future has been thrown into doubt recently as their parent company, Southampton Leisure Holdings, have gone into administration and they have so far avoided a points deduction. "We don't necessarily know all the ins and outs. It's easy for us to be outraged, but not until we know the facts," Browne told Luton Today. The Hatters were handed a 20-point penalty for a similar offence last season when their holding company Jayten entered administration and Browne is keen for consistency. "The Football League have continually spoken about the integrity of the competition, but if there is some way football clubs can rack up debts and put them in the name of a holding company, who is their 100 per cent owner, and enter insolvency, anything can happen to that company with no result to the football club," he added. "Personally I would be staggered if the Football League turn around and allow this to happen without a deduction." If the "loophole" is there, maybe Mr Browne wasn't savvy enough and is now just trying to save face?!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 You clearly are I'm afraid, Wes. Headline - "Luton director Stephen Browne admits the club are prepared to take legal action against the Football League if they fail to dock points from Southampton". Actual quotes that mention legal action - 0. Kinder people than I would call it "journalistic licence". I call it bullsh1t. Wes - I think you and I must wear the same glasses. The sort that help us read sentences and understand them. Erm, that's not a quote from the Luton director, is it you silly moo? :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 Erm, that's not a quote from the Luton director, is it you silly moo? :roll: And that is why, at 7.30pm last night, I posted this: I suppose, with hindsight, the salient point is that it is not a quote but reportage? I don't think calling me 'a silly moo' adds dignity to your posts, do you? Ar$ehole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 10 April, 2009 Wes, I'm sure I read somewhere that there is one of those catch all 'reserve the right' clauses in the FL's rules, which basically would allow the FL to punish the club without having to apply any rules retrospectively if they felt we didn't act within the spirit of the rules. I don't recall teh exact wording but hopefully you catchmy drift and in this instacce we may have grounds to fight the decision on a legal basis but without a pot to p1ss in we may just have to open wide and take the medicine. I personally don't take any comfort from any other threatened legal action and penalised clubs undoubtedly will try it on if they can afford it. I think that 'we reserve the right to do what we like' clause will be our undoing and Malwhinney will find us guilty and deduct points under their get out of jail card whilst closing the loophole. He will be hammered in the media otherwise. I appreciate your point, Nineteen, but still don't think that it holds water. Thankfully we have some people associated with the club who are well respected as some of the best legal brains in the country. Probably the best known and most respected is a certain Mr Salz. If he was completely confident that we had a fairly watertight case, perhaps there might be one or more of our wealthier supporters who would be prepared to cover our legal costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 10 April, 2009 Erm, that's not a quote from the Luton director, is it you silly moo? :roll: It is a reporter's quote of what the Luton director said. As such, if it is not what he said, that director can take legal action against the reporter for misrepresentation or demand that the reporter retracts his statement at least. You might be so cynical as to believe that because it was a reporter quoting what that director said that therefore it might not be true, but likewise you might as well not trust what you see on the TV news or in any other form of media either, as those are also stories by reporters. Also, you do your case no favours having to resort to name calling at those who do not agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 How about someone post a link to the original article so we can make a proper judgement on the semantics? All I can see is a cut and paste job which may not include everything and/or in context? Call me old fashioned.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 "Trousers. You are old fashioned." Oxford bags, perchance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 Luton were not a public company. The holding company was just another limited company that owned a football club. A public company is a completely different thing and the league know it. Whether it's a public company or not is utterly irelevant IMO. Why do you think it's significant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 He says, while being outraged without knowing all (or indeed any) of the facts... Exactly - if theres a loophole and legally we can exploit it, then unlucky Luton. They just lost my sympathy. Surely a better strategy would have been to support Saints keeping points and then say 'why cant we have ours back?' They deserve to go out of the league for this IMHO. Sod them. Very crass statement when not understanding the FACTS. And a very foolishly thought out strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 I don't think calling me 'a silly moo' adds dignity to your posts, do you? Maybe not, even if it is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 12 April, 2009 Share Posted 12 April, 2009 Whether it's a public company or not is utterly irelevant IMO. Why do you think it's significant? Still no answer from Derry, who has also ignored my questions along the same lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints Warrior Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 Luton should be docked a further 10 points for having such a rubbish ground. I will take legal action against them....plus another 10 points for not having enough fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 i don't blame 'em, luton have been treated abominably! massive points deduction, could be lowe's final insult to sfc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corsacar saint Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 Lutons treatment was totally incomphrehensible, then what do you expect with a former conservative party chairman calling the shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 (edited) I wasn't ignoring anyone, I had covered it all before. The company that is the club SFC Ltd, to be allowed to play in the league has to undertake to comply with their rules. One of which is to exempt the football authorities from legal action and to accept grievance procedure tribunals as the final arbiter in any dispute. A public company cannot do this. That is why the league insisted they be independent. As they are independent in a legal sense but because of the connection the league by imposing a penalty despite the member company being solvent and trading normally, under the league rules could only appeal. Because any illegal penalising action on the club which isn't in administration, would directly impact on the finances of the public company, it would certainly lead to the league/FA being sued. The enquiry being set up by the league is to effect a whitewash. The league's lawyers would have been studying the rules and the administration of SLH, if the rules were conclusively on the side of the league there would have been a statement that the rules would be applied as appropriate as laid down after the last match. The fact that the league have set up this lawyers enquiry is for them to come out independently and say what the league's lawyers and the league already know. This way they can hold their hands up and promise to close the alleged loophole caused by the implementation of their own rules. Edited 13 April, 2009 by derry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 I wasn't ignoring anyone, I had covered it all before. Thanks but I respectfully disagree. As asked before, where are these rules relating to public companies? Where does it say it is different to a limited company in the same situation as SLH (i.e. owning a club held in a limited company)? Also, as asked before, what do you mean by 'whitewash'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 I wasn't ignoring anyone, I had covered it all before. The company that is the club SFC Ltd, to be allowed to play in the league has to undertake to comply with their rules. One of which is to exempt the football authorities from legal action and to accept grievance procedure tribunals as the final arbiter in any dispute. A public company cannot do this. That is why the league insisted they be independent. As they are independent in a legal sense but because of the connection the league by imposing a penalty despite the member company being solvent and trading normally, under the league rules could only appeal. Because any illegal penalising action on the club which isn't in administration, would directly impact on the finances of the public company, it would certainly lead to the league/FA being sued. The enquiry being set up by the league is to effect a whitewash. The league's lawyers would have been studying the rules and the administration of SLH, if the rules were conclusively on the side of the league there would have been a statement that the rules would be applied as appropriate as laid down after the last match. The fact that the league have set up this lawyers enquiry is for them to come out independently and say what the league's lawyers and the league already know. This way they can hold their hands up and promise to close the alleged loophole caused by the implementation of their own rules. Cheers for the reply Derry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 Luton are now out of the Football League so who cares what they think anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 Poor old Luton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 Poor old Luton. Yes and while the management who were in place at the time of their misdemeanours have walked away, their fans, as usual the only constant which a club have, are suffering badly. I do feel for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 My first ever league match was Luton vs Oxford so I have a soft spot for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 Yes and while the management who were in place at the time of their misdemeanours have walked away, their fans, as usual the only constant which a club have, are suffering badly. I do feel for them. Mike Newell should have shut it about bungs, they'd still be in League 1 probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomobz Posted 13 April, 2009 Share Posted 13 April, 2009 They have been treated like a joke. The FL should be ashamed but by them taking legal action against the FL they aren't doing it against us so we dont need to worry about it. 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