City lawyer Steve Grant hits out at Football League over Southampton appeal (From Daily Echo)

Well said that man

SW - bone-tape (red-tape would have been more apt)

Pure posturing from someone who sees the opportunity for a liitle free PR.

We are talking about a private association, not corporate or criminal law. My golf club stipulates that I have to wear a collared shirt, is this a restraint on my personal dress code or is it a local rule that is laid down to everybody who wishes to be a member of that particular association.
There are no grounds for an appeal here - it is a communal rule that has been invoked by a private association. If pinnacle were serious they would just get on with things and stop bleating about the 10 points. They were fully aware of the situation, like us all, before they agreed to exclusivity!

Sounds to me that it would now be appropriate for the Southampton MPs to get off their back sides and bring the mattter to the attention of the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary to force the league to abandon their illegal position.Might seem far fetched but certainly pressure needs to be brought to bear against Mawhinney and quickly.

Who on earth cares what this random person thinks? Not the Football League and not me. “Incredibly unfair” I had to read this one, this isn't Erin Brokovich. This is a schoolboy interpretation of the League's rules, the penalties were clear at the outset of Administration, this whining is a further insult to Saints fans.

sfc70 wrote:
Pure posturing from someone who sees the opportunity for a liitle free PR. We are talking about a private association, not corporate or criminal law. My golf club stipulates that I have to wear a collared shirt, is this a restraint on my personal dress code or is it a local rule that is laid down to everybody who wishes to be a member of that particular association. There are no grounds for an appeal here - it is a communal rule that has been invoked by a private association. If pinnacle were serious they would just get on with things and stop bleating about the 10 points. They were fully aware of the situation, like us all, before they agreed to exclusivity!

rubbish - your analogy is a poor one.No organization is above the law and for the League to deny a football club membership simply for questioning the legality of the conditions of membership is farcical.How would you like it if your golf club insisted you could only join if you changed your religion let's say. Yo'd want to appeal to a higher authority too wouldnt you. That is all Pinacle is asking for - the right to be heard in a court of law which would give an impartial opinion.

Yeah, what he said....if you want to play my game you play by my rules...move on!

thats it give me my ball im going home !!

montecristosaint wrote:

sfc70 wrote: Pure posturing from someone who sees the opportunity for a liitle free PR. We are talking about a private association, not corporate or criminal law. My golf club stipulates that I have to wear a collared shirt, is this a restraint on my personal dress code or is it a local rule that is laid down to everybody who wishes to be a member of that particular association. There are no grounds for an appeal here - it is a communal rule that has been invoked by a private association. If pinnacle were serious they would just get on with things and stop bleating about the 10 points. They were fully aware of the situation, like us all, before they agreed to exclusivity!

rubbish - your analogy is a poor one.No organization is above the law and for the League to deny a football club membership simply for questioning the legality of the conditions of membership is farcical.How would you like it if your golf club insisted you could only join if you changed your religion let's say. Yo'd want to appeal to a higher authority too wouldnt you. That is all Pinacle is asking for - the right to be heard in a court of law which would give an impartial opinion.

Poor analogy! Read your post back if you really want one of those.
This is not a legal issue you numbskull.

How much would it cost saints fans and employees to take the league to court irrespective of any take over.

If Steve is willing to give time I am sure that a group can be created to cover court costs.

If each season ticket (current only) holder gave a fiver then we would have 40k to play with. I am aware that court cost can far exceed that but a large part of those costs are for legal representation.

Jesus_02 wrote:
How much would it cost saints fans and employees to take the league to court irrespective of any take over. If Steve is willing to give time I am sure that a group can be created to cover court costs. If each season ticket (current only) holder gave a fiver then we would have 40k to play with. I am aware that court cost can far exceed that but a large part of those costs are for legal representation.

Congratulations on the dumbest post of the day award.

It does not matter what fans believe, football is a business and big business at that, to hold back registration as the football league are doing at the moment is not allowing the club to carry out it's business, this is not like being a member of a club (golf or whatever) this matter does come under corporate law.

If I remember the law of contract from my college days if a contract or agreement was made under duress (ie Southampton's waiver) then the contract or agreement would be voidable, which would mean the Saints could contest the waiver and then appeal.

sfc70 wrote:
Pure posturing from someone who sees the opportunity for a liitle free PR. We are talking about a private association, not corporate or criminal law. My golf club stipulates that I have to wear a collared shirt, is this a restraint on my personal dress code or is it a local rule that is laid down to everybody who wishes to be a member of that particular association. There are no grounds for an appeal here - it is a communal rule that has been invoked by a private association. If pinnacle were serious they would just get on with things and stop bleating about the 10 points. They were fully aware of the situation, like us all, before they agreed to exclusivity!

Think you're on the wrong track with this one.
The argument IS over a point of law. The FL have looked at the situation and decided that SFC was in administration and deducted points, but this is their opinion. But SFC, the administrator and PG have looked at it and say SFC was not in administration, in their opinion. The true state of the club needs to be decided IN LAW, and this should be the decision that all sides accept. I feel that the FL is running scared that the decision would go against them, hence the witholding of the license unless an appeal is waived.
Only my opinion though.

John Gillham wrote:
If I remember the law of contract from my college days if a contract or agreement was made under duress (ie Southampton's waiver) then the contract or agreement would be voidable, which would mean the Saints could contest the waiver and then appeal.

I have just worked on a a teaching aid that says exactly that! And like Invidia says, this IS business, and like montecristosaint says, if your golf club suddenly revoked membership for people who were from ethnic minorities, then they would be answerable to the Law, not protected because it was a private organisation.

And sfc70, this IS a legal issue, that's why the lawyers are dealing with it, YOU NUMBSKULL!

All this re-hashing of content, i could get a job at The Echo... ;-)

There is no excuse for what the FL is doing.It isn't the way business is conducted. Sadly football authorities, and not only the FL, do this on a fairly regular basis and they get away with it. It shouldn't really be a great surprise.

What makes it terrible is that it's happening to us this time.

I would suggest the law school where Mr Grant obtained his degree should consider revoking it!

This is mind blowingly obvious that Delia Smith earns substantial income from publishing companies, endorsements and TV shows which have absolutely no connection to Norwich City FC........

If I were Southampton FC I would tread very carefully here......... Trying to be clever and use the "letter of the law" while it was obvious that the holding company was used for nothing but deceit is dangerous when dealing with a private entity like the football league.

They have proven in the past that they will punish anyone who not only breaks rules but tries to circumvent them.

If they appeal they could open up further discovery which could lead to an increase in punishment.

Given that it was admitted on the radio by Leon Crouch that the sole reason the holding company was created was to avoid admin is damming evidence alone regardless of the reports from the forensic accountants.

Thank heavens for Mr Grant, whoever you are.

Unless it is clearly and unambiguously stated prior to making a decision or ruling, it is against natural law not to allow an appeal.

To then suddenly, and seeming without notice, place a further stricture, e.g. the Saint’s potential new owner(s) or bidder(s) must also waive their right to appeal, or they will not be granted a licence by the Football League, is tantamount to blackmail.

Whilst it is tempting to meekly accept and to give in to the League’s blackmailing and bullying tactics, they must be challenged at all costs.

To cave in would be to bring dishonour on this great football club.

I am aware nowadays words like ethics, fairness, morality and principles have become so debased they mean little or nothing. But, the single and highest value our game bestowed upon the sporting world was building in and codifying fairness right into its Laws.

If the Football League is so certain of its ruling then it has nothing to fear by allowing an appeal. In fact, it has everything to gain, as it will strengthen its case for future times.

We must not cave in to blackmail or to bullies, whether they are on the terraces of our stadia or in the boardrooms of Gloucester Place, London.

The Football League is acting unfair.

usacanary wrote:
I would suggest the law school where Mr Grant obtained his degree should consider revoking it! This is mind blowingly obvious that Delia Smith earns substantial income from publishing companies, endorsements and TV shows which have absolutely no connection to Norwich City FC........ If I were Southampton FC I would tread very carefully here......... Trying to be clever and use the "letter of the law" while it was obvious that the holding company was used for nothing but deceit is dangerous when dealing with a private entity like the football league. They have proven in the past that they will punish anyone who not only breaks rules but tries to circumvent them. If they appeal they could open up further discovery which could lead to an increase in punishment. Given that it was admitted on the radio by Leon Crouch that the sole reason the holding company was created was to avoid admin is damming evidence alone regardless of the reports from the forensic accountants.

You seem to forget that SLH was set up well before the rule was made, if the FL believed the Saints to be wrong when they introduced this rule they should have informed all the clubs that were in that situation, I know Saints were in the premier league and they were governed by the premiership rules, but surely as representitives of the football league they should have informed relegated clubs of the dangers that could befall them, they did not with hold their entry to the football league then did they, no the football league are on the backfoot, that is why they are insisting on Saints waivering the right of appeal.

montecristosaint wrote:
Sounds to me that it would now be appropriate for the Southampton MPs to get off their back sides and bring the mattter to the attention of the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary to force the league to abandon their illegal position.Might seem far fetched but certainly pressure needs to be brought to bear against Mawhinney and quickly.

Absolutely right!

Would only add to that. By saying Sky should be hounding the pratt Mawhinney for clear and percise reason for refusing our football club the lawful right to appeal!

Can we not get over this? When the decision was made to put the holding company into admin, it took the FL several days to meet and come with the decision that the holding company was nothing more than a name. The holding company relied on income from the football club to operate and was therefore deemed to have broken the football league rules, surely it is better to start the season in the football league on minus 10 than not to start, although Im pretty sure that Luton or whoever went down with them would gladly see the saints go out of business, to retain/regain their FL status!

PPChris wrote:
Can we not get over this? When the decision was made to put the holding company into admin, it took the FL several days to meet and come with the decision that the holding company was nothing more than a name. The holding company relied on income from the football club to operate and was therefore deemed to have broken the football league rules, surely it is better to start the season in the football league on minus 10 than not to start, although Im pretty sure that Luton or whoever went down with them would gladly see the saints go out of business, to retain/regain their FL status!

It's not as straight forward as that.

Let alone at last having a board with a backbone! Added to the fact that if at the end of the season we miss promotion by say 11 points, this would be very costly indeed with another season in this low league.

You have to stand up to bullies, otherwise a very bad presidence is set. i.e. where does it stop!

100% behind Pinnacle.

Invidia wrote:

usacanary wrote: I would suggest the law school where Mr Grant obtained his degree should consider revoking it! This is mind blowingly obvious that Delia Smith earns substantial income from publishing companies, endorsements and TV shows which have absolutely no connection to Norwich City FC........ If I were Southampton FC I would tread very carefully here......... Trying to be clever and use the "letter of the law" while it was obvious that the holding company was used for nothing but deceit is dangerous when dealing with a private entity like the football league. They have proven in the past that they will punish anyone who not only breaks rules but tries to circumvent them. If they appeal they could open up further discovery which could lead to an increase in punishment. Given that it was admitted on the radio by Leon Crouch that the sole reason the holding company was created was to avoid admin is damming evidence alone regardless of the reports from the forensic accountants.

You seem to forget that SLH was set up well before the rule was made, if the FL believed the Saints to be wrong when they introduced this rule they should have informed all the clubs that were in that situation, I know Saints were in the premier league and they were governed by the premiership rules, but surely as representitives of the football league they should have informed relegated clubs of the dangers that could befall them, they did not with hold their entry to the football league then did they, no the football league are on the backfoot, that is why they are insisting on Saints waivering the right of appeal.

The very fact it has been admitted by Leon Crouch that it was set up for dishonesty should mean that Southampton should take it on the chin and move on....quickly.

Its laughable that some are calling the FL bullies when Southampton are the ones who tried to pull a fast one.
They got caught.
Just like Luton's previous owners got caught.
Thank your lucky stars its not -30 points !

On a related note as an outside observer there is something strange about pinnacles behavior.
Do they really have the financial ability to get Southampton out of their hole?

They knew from the start they were starting the season on -10........ now they are acting as if its critical they win an appeal.
Is it an excuse while they try and raise more funds?

Of course the longer this drags the more it hurts Southampton and those who work for the club.
I feel very sorry for the lower paid people at the club who are getting hit the hardest.

I am amazed that a supposedly top lawyer would come out with such naive rubbish. The holding company was set up with the sole purpose of trying to avoid a penalty if the club went in to administration and they have come unstuck. The club got caught out trying to work a flanker, live with the fact they got caught and accept the punishment.

Well done Steve. I'm glad a lawyer has set it out. It isn't the detail in dispute in is the legal right to dispute them that is the fundamental issue.

The freedom of the people to take issue should be held very dear and should not be taken away out of exasperation.

Fatpau1 wrote:
I am amazed that a supposedly top lawyer would come out with such naive rubbish. The holding company was set up with the sole purpose of trying to avoid a penalty if the club went in to administration and they have come unstuck. The club got caught out trying to work a flanker, live with the fact they got caught and accept the punishment.

Wrong, try going to Companies House and looking things up.

SLH - company no 02072250 was original called
GOLDBALLOT PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY until 09/01/1987 when it became
SECURE RETIREMENT PLC and then SLH ON 13 JAN 1997 !!!! (at least 7 years BEFORE the FL changed their rules).

As a company it operates to (1) "General construction & civil engineering"
(2)"Operate sports arenas & stadiums".
It is THIS company that is in Administration.

Whereas company number 00053301 is SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB. It was incorporated in 12/07/1897 (110+ years ago).
This company is NOT in Admin and it's ONLY business is (2) above NOT (1).
It is this company that OWNS the "Golden Share" with the FL (unlike leeds/luton etc where the company that OWNED the share was the one to go into Admin).

Now if you read the ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION for company 000533301 it does NOT say anything about being "wholly owned" or anything similar.
It does says :-
- there are 60,000 shares who can be held by anyone.
- it also says things like "In the event that any person alone or jointly with other person shall be the holder of not less than 90% can attend and vote at general meetings" etc. etc.

This means that they are set up as seperate companies.
It just happens that SLH own all the shares at the moment and are planning to sell the 60,000 shares to somebody else.

Company 000533301 CANNOT ask the Law Courts for a CVA because it is NOT in admin.

All of this was setup years ago and NOT to get around the rules as you state.

sfc70 wrote:

Jesus_02 wrote:
How much would it cost saints fans and employees to take the league to court irrespective of any take over. If Steve is willing to give time I am sure that a group can be created to cover court costs. If each season ticket (current only) holder gave a fiver then we would have 40k to play with. I am aware that court cost can far exceed that but a large part of those costs are for legal representation.

Congratulations on the dumbest post of the day award.

reason?

Saint_John wrote:

Fatpau1 wrote: I am amazed that a supposedly top lawyer would come out with such naive rubbish. The holding company was set up with the sole purpose of trying to avoid a penalty if the club went in to administration and they have come unstuck. The club got caught out trying to work a flanker, live with the fact they got caught and accept the punishment.

Wrong, try going to Companies House and looking things up. SLH - company no 02072250 was original called GOLDBALLOT PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY until 09/01/1987 when it became SECURE RETIREMENT PLC and then SLH ON 13 JAN 1997 !!!! (at least 7 years BEFORE the FL changed their rules). As a company it operates to (1) "General construction & civil engineering" (2)"Operate sports arenas & stadiums". It is THIS company that is in Administration. Whereas company number 00053301 is SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB. It was incorporated in 12/07/1897 (110+ years ago). This company is NOT in Admin and it's ONLY business is (2) above NOT (1). It is this company that OWNS the "Golden Share" with the FL (unlike leeds/luton etc where the company that OWNED the share was the one to go into Admin). Now if you read the ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION for company 000533301 it does NOT say anything about being "wholly owned" or anything similar. It does says :- - there are 60,000 shares who can be held by anyone. - it also says things like "In the event that any person alone or jointly with other person shall be the holder of not less than 90% can attend and vote at general meetings" etc. etc. This means that they are set up as seperate companies. It just happens that SLH own all the shares at the moment and are planning to sell the 60,000 shares to somebody else. Company 000533301 CANNOT ask the Law Courts for a CVA because it is NOT in admin. All of this was setup years ago and NOT to get around the rules as you state.

Lets get this straight.......

(1)People are not getting paid......

(2)You can't buy anyone.

(3)You have no board

(4)The club has appointed an administrator.

YET....... you want to claim you arn't in admin!

LOL... April 1st is a long way off.

I agree with all points and comments in this post BUT....... This is like having a patient in hospital and two very passionate ethical doctors arguing how to treat the patient the best way . They both want to patient to have the best treatment but whilst they argue over the course of action THE PATIENT DIES. Unintential outcome, very tragic but it is the final outcome. Please Mr Fry peoples livlihoods are at stake here and if a point of law is strong enough to be argued then lets worry about it after our patient Southampton Football has been saved first.

usacanary wrote:

Saint_John wrote:

Fatpau1 wrote: I am amazed that a supposedly top lawyer would come out with such naive rubbish. The holding company was set up with the sole purpose of trying to avoid a penalty if the club went in to administration and they have come unstuck. The club got caught out trying to work a flanker, live with the fact they got caught and accept the punishment.

Wrong, try going to Companies House and looking things up. SLH - company no 02072250 was original called GOLDBALLOT PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY until 09/01/1987 when it became SECURE RETIREMENT PLC and then SLH ON 13 JAN 1997 !!!! (at least 7 years BEFORE the FL changed their rules). As a company it operates to (1) "General construction & civil engineering" (2)"Operate sports arenas & stadiums". It is THIS company that is in Administration. Whereas company number 00053301 is SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB. It was incorporated in 12/07/1897 (110+ years ago). This company is NOT in Admin and it's ONLY business is (2) above NOT (1). It is this company that OWNS the "Golden Share" with the FL (unlike leeds/luton etc where the company that OWNED the share was the one to go into Admin). Now if you read the ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION for company 000533301 it does NOT say anything about being "wholly owned" or anything similar. It does says :- - there are 60,000 shares who can be held by anyone. - it also says things like "In the event that any person alone or jointly with other person shall be the holder of not less than 90% can attend and vote at general meetings" etc. etc. This means that they are set up as seperate companies. It just happens that SLH own all the shares at the moment and are planning to sell the 60,000 shares to somebody else. Company 000533301 CANNOT ask the Law Courts for a CVA because it is NOT in admin. All of this was setup years ago and NOT to get around the rules as you state.

Lets get this straight....... (1)People are not getting paid...... (2)You can't buy anyone. (3)You have no board (4)The club has appointed an administrator. YET....... you want to claim you arn't in admin! LOL... April 1st is a long way off.

WRONG in 3 out of 4.

1/ people/companies/emp
loyees of company 0533301 HAVE BEEN paid for the last 8 WEEKS (sometimes late but paid) since company 02072250 went into Admin.

3/ Yes there is a 3 man board to company 00533301

4/ Company 02072250 has applied to the courts to go into Admin and the Courts have appointed an Administrator for company 02072250 NOT company 00533301.

Extra point, why if the FL tought we were in Admin did they not hand the money for Dyer and TV payments to the Administrator as per English Law !!!!

Instead THEY KEPT some of the money back DUE TO company 0053301 to pay Notts County and Bournemouth for Adam and David McG???
It seems on this issue the FL doesn't think company 000533301 is in Admin.

Fatpau1 wrote:
I am amazed that a supposedly top lawyer would come out with such naive rubbish. The holding company was set up with the sole purpose of trying to avoid a penalty if the club went in to administration and they have come unstuck. The club got caught out trying to work a flanker, live with the fact they got caught and accept the punishment.

100% wrong.

Check your facts first. Here is a clue. Reverse takeover, now take it from there.

usacanary wrote:

Saint_John wrote:

Fatpau1 wrote: I am amazed that a supposedly top lawyer would come out with such naive rubbish. The holding company was set up with the sole purpose of trying to avoid a penalty if the club went in to administration and they have come unstuck. The club got caught out trying to work a flanker, live with the fact they got caught and accept the punishment.

Wrong, try going to Companies House and looking things up. SLH - company no 02072250 was original called GOLDBALLOT PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY until 09/01/1987 when it became SECURE RETIREMENT PLC and then SLH ON 13 JAN 1997 !!!! (at least 7 years BEFORE the FL changed their rules). As a company it operates to (1) "General construction & civil engineering" (2)"Operate sports arenas & stadiums". It is THIS company that is in Administration. Whereas company number 00053301 is SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB. It was incorporated in 12/07/1897 (110+ years ago). This company is NOT in Admin and it's ONLY business is (2) above NOT (1). It is this company that OWNS the "Golden Share" with the FL (unlike leeds/luton etc where the company that OWNED the share was the one to go into Admin). Now if you read the ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION for company 000533301 it does NOT say anything about being "wholly owned" or anything similar. It does says :- - there are 60,000 shares who can be held by anyone. - it also says things like "In the event that any person alone or jointly with other person shall be the holder of not less than 90% can attend and vote at general meetings" etc. etc. This means that they are set up as seperate companies. It just happens that SLH own all the shares at the moment and are planning to sell the 60,000 shares to somebody else. Company 000533301 CANNOT ask the Law Courts for a CVA because it is NOT in admin. All of this was setup years ago and NOT to get around the rules as you state.

Lets get this straight....... (1)People are not getting paid...... (2)You can't buy anyone. (3)You have no board (4)The club has appointed an administrator. YET....... you want to claim you arn't in admin! LOL... April 1st is a long way off.

(1) yes they are
(2) a FL deccision erroniuosly based on the thier presumption that we wre in admin
(3) not a pre-requisite of being solvent. otherwise everytime a chairman stood down clubs would be given -10 points

Not everyone has their ground bought for them

The only difference between the holding company and the football club was one small piece of land, donated by an ex-director. The two are essentially the same, hence the club's inability to pay staff their wages today.
Saints had seven days to appeal and didn't. End of.
I suspect this is more about future points penalties for failing to come out of administration properly.

AB12345 wrote:
Who on earth cares what this random person thinks? Not the Football League and not me. “Incredibly unfair” I had to read this one, this isn't Erin Brokovich. This is a schoolboy interpretation of the League's rules, the penalties were clear at the outset of Administration, this whining is a further insult to Saints fans.

The point is if the rules were so clear from the start why make the club sign a waiver to stop us from appealing? They should just get on with it let the club take over go ahead, wait for an appeal and then if it's thrown out all over clubs will know the stance in the future!

Ha-ha. Remember you lot all laughing at Leeds - unjust or otherwise. Now the FL's come back to bite ya'. Ha-ha

I was thinking about this a little more today and here's a slightly different possibility:

Suppose the FL were wrong to deduct the 10 points because it was the PLC not the club that went into admin, we should not have to reapply for the licence that is apparently holding things up, therefore we would not have to agree to the FL's demand to waive the right to appeal their decision.

The whole thing becomes circular, because we would be claiming that our registration should never have been cancelled because the club was never in admin.

If my speculation (and without knowing the ins and outs it is simply that) is correct the FL would have a potentially massive claim on their hands if SFC were illegally unable to register this season - you could imagine how the claim for damages would be huge given the conseuquences of such an illegality.

In those circumstances it seems the FL would have as much to gain as us from allowing an independent panel to hear an appeal.

SteveGrant wrote:
I was thinking about this a little more today and here's a slightly different possibility: Suppose the FL were wrong to deduct the 10 points because it was the PLC not the club that went into admin, we should not have to reapply for the licence that is apparently holding things up, therefore we would not have to agree to the FL's demand to waive the right to appeal their decision. The whole thing becomes circular, because we would be claiming that our registration should never have been cancelled because the club was never in admin. If my speculation (and without knowing the ins and outs it is simply that) is correct the FL would have a potentially massive claim on their hands if SFC were illegally unable to register this season - you could imagine how the claim for damages would be huge given the conseuquences of such an illegality. In those circumstances it seems the FL would have as much to gain as us from allowing an independent panel to hear an appeal.

I understand your argument however another way of looking at it is this.

If no-one buys saints. The problem disappears.

If whoever buys saints signs a waver not to take action the problem also disappears.

That’s why the only real option is for the fans to take action. Which judging by the response I got last time I suggested it wouldn’t be popular!

Especially because there are those that agree that the League sits outside the Law and therefore can play god with peoples jobs.

For those that don’t think that the league should be apposed, read the following BBC article. I think it demonstrates that the points deductions handed out to clubs is too harsh and also that the English teams should have the right to appeal League Deccisions.

http://news.bbc.co.u
k/sport1/hi/football
/europe/5215178.stm

Saint_John wrote:

usacanary wrote:

Saint_John wrote:

Fatpau1 wrote: I am amazed that a supposedly top lawyer would come out with such naive rubbish. The holding company was set up with the sole purpose of trying to avoid a penalty if the club went in to administration and they have come unstuck. The club got caught out trying to work a flanker, live with the fact they got caught and accept the punishment.

Wrong, try going to Companies House and looking things up. SLH - company no 02072250 was original called GOLDBALLOT PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY until 09/01/1987 when it became SECURE RETIREMENT PLC and then SLH ON 13 JAN 1997 !!!! (at least 7 years BEFORE the FL changed their rules). As a company it operates to (1) "General construction & civil engineering" (2)"Operate sports arenas & stadiums". It is THIS company that is in Administration. Whereas company number 00053301 is SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB. It was incorporated in 12/07/1897 (110+ years ago). This company is NOT in Admin and it's ONLY business is (2) above NOT (1). It is this company that OWNS the "Golden Share" with the FL (unlike leeds/luton etc where the company that OWNED the share was the one to go into Admin). Now if you read the ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION for company 000533301 it does NOT say anything about being "wholly owned" or anything similar. It does says :- - there are 60,000 shares who can be held by anyone. - it also says things like "In the event that any person alone or jointly with other person shall be the holder of not less than 90% can attend and vote at general meetings" etc. etc. This means that they are set up as seperate companies. It just happens that SLH own all the shares at the moment and are planning to sell the 60,000 shares to somebody else. Company 000533301 CANNOT ask the Law Courts for a CVA because it is NOT in admin. All of this was setup years ago and NOT to get around the rules as you state.

Lets get this straight....... (1)People are not getting paid...... (2)You can't buy anyone. (3)You have no board (4)The club has appointed an administrator. YET....... you want to claim you arn't in admin! LOL... April 1st is a long way off.

WRONG in 3 out of 4. 1/ people/companies/emp loyees of company 0533301 HAVE BEEN paid for the last 8 WEEKS (sometimes late but paid) since company 02072250 went into Admin. 3/ Yes there is a 3 man board to company 00533301 4/ Company 02072250 has applied to the courts to go into Admin and the Courts have appointed an Administrator for company 02072250 NOT company 00533301. Extra point, why if the FL tought we were in Admin did they not hand the money for Dyer and TV payments to the Administrator as per English Law !!!! Instead THEY KEPT some of the money back DUE TO company 0053301 to pay Notts County and Bournemouth for Adam and David McG??? It seems on this issue the FL doesn't think company 000533301 is in Admin.

I am sure Luton town made the same legal shmeagal just before they got hit with the deduction.

You points about seperate entitys is basically NULL and VOID because its already been admitted in the public domain that it was created for no reason but to dishonestly avoid admin penalties.

You and I know full well that it was deceptive and tried to go against the spirit of the law involved.

After a potracted legal case its remotely possible that you could win the argument but I am sure the FL would then give you a 20 point penalty for these shenanigans (ala Luton)
You also have to work with them in the future!

The dishonesty stinks and should be punished IMHO.

Maybe some of you should have taken note of my post above from the 24th!

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/sport/4460885
.More_details_emerge
_of_Fialka_s_backgro
und/