Football League hit out at Pinnacle (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Football League hit out at Pinnacle
9:47am Wednesday 1st July 2009 in Saints News
Football League hit out at Pinnacle
THE Football League have hit out at Pinnacle over the supposed reasons for their takeover collapsing.
Pinnacle claimed they had agreed to accept a ten-point deduction imposed by the league, which comes into effect at the start of the season.
However, they said there were “other issues” that had arisen with them late in the day that they could not overcome.
A source has told the Daily Echo Pinnacle were fearful of further sanctions and wanted a guarantee they would not receive any.
But the Football League said there was no major issue raised with them other than the right to appeal the ten-point deduction.
They have also stressed very firmly to the Echo that further points deductions against Saints were not being considered.
A league spokesman said Pinnacle had been in receipt of a contract from them for over a week and, to proceed, only needed to provide clarification in regard to funding.
“We are very surprised by the comments that other conditions, allegedly imposed by the League, led to the Pinnacle Group withdrawing from their proposed takeover of Southampton Football Club,” said the spokesman.
“Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue.
“The Pinnacle Group has been in receipt of a contract from the League for over a week now.
“To proceed, all it needed to do was to provide clarification in regard to funding and sign the contract.”
Comments(67)
DorsetSaint
says...
9:52am Wed 1 Jul 09
tonkerthomas
says...
9:53am Wed 1 Jul 09
realistic lover
says...
9:53am Wed 1 Jul 09
Comment over.
weh8pompey
says...
9:58am Wed 1 Jul 09
steveyot
says...
9:59am Wed 1 Jul 09
ramptonfromsouthampton
says...
10:00am Wed 1 Jul 09
Hordriss
says...
10:00am Wed 1 Jul 09
wraggster
says...
10:01am Wed 1 Jul 09
Charismatic Andrew
says...
10:01am Wed 1 Jul 09
adam1981 wrote:Easy tiger.
very interesting,about time we had some information.looks like pinnacle never even had the money.reassuring to know it was not about a further points deduction.hopefully we can get someone now quickly and still start on -10 and nothing more.Thanks pinnacle!!!
The league hasn't said anything about ruling out a further points deduction.
In fact it's just the opposite. "Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions" - to me this clearly leaves open the way open for further points sanctions.
w1lkins822
says...
10:03am Wed 1 Jul 09
feel sorry for MLT he was duped.
truelysaints
says...
10:05am Wed 1 Jul 09
Bitterne Park Tim
says...
10:05am Wed 1 Jul 09
Anyway move on!
Come on Switzerland, Austrian, Moldovan, Bolivian.... Red Bull drinking industrialists... Get your cash on the Table and get going!
StPete
says...
10:09am Wed 1 Jul 09
Charismatic Andrew wrote:Agreed. Where is the mention of 10 points. This just adds more worry
adam1981 wrote:Easy tiger.
very interesting,about time we had some information.looks like pinnacle never even had the money.reassuring to know it was not about a further points deduction.hopefully we can get someone now quickly and still start on -10 and nothing more.Thanks pinnacle!!!
The league hasn't said anything about ruling out a further points deduction.
In fact it's just the opposite. "Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions" - to me this clearly leaves open the way open for further points sanctions.
Major Sir Jerry Pending
says...
10:10am Wed 1 Jul 09
SomersetSaint
says...
10:12am Wed 1 Jul 09
3231brian
says...
10:16am Wed 1 Jul 09
It doesn't matter who you get as new owners, they have to agree a CVA with >75% of all creditors otherwise you will incur a further points deduction iaw FL rules. This has been established as
-15 points unless there is a reason for it to be more ie. AFCB -17, Rotherham -17 & Luton -20. The main sticking point seems to be if you owe a lot to HMRC, they will not accept anything less that 100% of the debt. However, if they are not the main creditor you may be ok, such as Darlington where the debt to HMRC was only a small percentage of the overall debt and the CVA was agreed.
All I can say is good luck!
wraggster
says...
10:16am Wed 1 Jul 09
Charismatic Andrew wrote:Yeah probably will now if you remember, when Lynam was interviewed at training ground he said staff and players wages for june would be honoured due to their godwill but they did not did they, so dont we get more points sanction for this. Would be nice if Leon Crouch could comment on the financial side.. Bet they did not get their egg's either
adam1981 wrote: very interesting,about time we had some information.looks like pinnacle never even had the money.reassuring to know it was not about a further points deduction.hopefully we can get someone now quickly and still start on -10 and nothing more.Thanks pinnacle!!!Easy tiger. The league hasn't said anything about ruling out a further points deduction. In fact it's just the opposite. "Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions" - to me this clearly leaves open the way open for further points sanctions.
Nothing to say
says...
10:17am Wed 1 Jul 09
BELIEVE NO ONE.
THIS IS FOOTBALL, EVERYONE IN IT LIES THROUGH THEIR TEETH.
JKE
says...
10:20am Wed 1 Jul 09
H0ckeyd
says...
10:20am Wed 1 Jul 09
SomersetSaint wrote:The reason for this is essentially the reason why business now focus on processes as opposed to "task-based work"..it's easier to see the whole process externally than when you are working on a single task (i.e. trying to sell the club)
How come I sussed that Pinnacle had no wealthy backer well before the exclusivity period ended on 19th June, yet Fry and MLT believed otherwise right up until this week? Unbelievable!!
wraggster
says...
10:20am Wed 1 Jul 09
news
avidsaint
says...
10:22am Wed 1 Jul 09
weh8pompey
says...
10:23am Wed 1 Jul 09
wraggster wrote:echo always 1st for a story.
this story has just been on sky sports news
saintsfan77
says...
10:25am Wed 1 Jul 09
I drink red bull so hopefully as a season ticket holder i will now get a discount on the drink lol
wraggster
says...
10:27am Wed 1 Jul 09
weh8pompey wrote:Yeah but sky sports
wraggster wrote: this story has just been on sky sports newsecho always 1st for a story.
are more credible
don't you think.
Tirau Dan (NZL)
says...
10:29am Wed 1 Jul 09
Major Sir Jerry Pending wrote:I supported Matt until the deal was pulled but Pinnacles steadfast refusal not to give details was puzzling. We now know the truth which is there was nothing to say.
Why should we believe what the football league say and not MLT and Tony Lynham? If Matt says there were other issues and they tried everything to resolve them then I'm more inclined to take his word rather than some jumped-up clerk at the football league who all have their heads so far up their own backsides that they can't see the damage they are causing to football in general.
I'll give them the benefit of any doubt regarding funds availability. They had a backer who would only fund the team in the L1 for one year. The ten points would probable at best gove a good saints side a go a the play-offs. Matt believed he could convince the backer they would get promotion but the play-offs are far from a certainty so they didn't get the money. The backers return was probably ted up in football TV rights which would have only come with quick promotion.
Matt is guilty of having let himself get carried away. That caused a lot of hurt and upset to we emotional fans.
It's back to real business now and I for one shall Mr Fry to announce that money has changed hands and pen has pen put to paper before I I let myself get carried away with Matt or anyone else.
I do remain hopeful and faithful that Saints having such good facilities would be an attractive business proposition to a sensible businessman.
Stafford Saint
says...
10:30am Wed 1 Jul 09
What is important between the FL and any potential owners is that there is a feasible way out of admin wint in the rules. From the little I know I would thought we will be ok. I don't know of a large debt to the revenue. I doubt we owe other clubs much (this is also a must pay element I hear). I guess if we get the agreement of Aviva and Barclays we are fine.
Jesus_02
says...
10:34am Wed 1 Jul 09
StPete wrote:A waiver regarding "sporting sanctions" would mean that if the league gave us additional penalty's then we could not appeal either. These “sporting sanctions” could be completely unprecedented but could not be contested.
Charismatic Andrew wrote:Agreed. Where is the mention of 10 points. This just adds more worryadam1981 wrote: very interesting,about time we had some information.looks like pinnacle never even had the money.reassuring to know it was not about a further points deduction.hopefully we can get someone now quickly and still start on -10 and nothing more.Thanks pinnacle!!!Easy tiger. The league hasn't said anything about ruling out a further points deduction. In fact it's just the opposite. "Throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions" - to me this clearly leaves open the way open for further points sanctions.
Also “sporting sanctions” would not necessarily be limited to points deductions. It could relate to player trading and other elements of the business of the club.
Lets hope that the league seizes the chance to break the stalemate otherwise they saints could be in real trouble.
WhatNext
says...
10:35am Wed 1 Jul 09
Jesus_02
says...
10:36am Wed 1 Jul 09
wraggster
says...
10:38am Wed 1 Jul 09
for round about 1m
DorsetSaint
says...
10:40am Wed 1 Jul 09
my worry is still the cva issue
TGRWorzel
says...
10:47am Wed 1 Jul 09
As I said yesterday, I think Saints might have had a lucky escape with Pinnacle - provided somebody does eventually snap them up....
stmarysmush
says...
10:53am Wed 1 Jul 09
steveyot
says...
10:56am Wed 1 Jul 09
Hyper Charger
says...
11:02am Wed 1 Jul 09
Seems pretty clear to me!
SaintPaul
says...
11:10am Wed 1 Jul 09
3231brian
says...
11:21am Wed 1 Jul 09
normsted
says...
11:22am Wed 1 Jul 09
wraggster
says...
11:24am Wed 1 Jul 09
SaintPaul wrote:How do you know Pinnacle paid it?
Look guys Pinnacle paid £500,000 for their period of exclusivity and Fry let them have it, after all why wouldn't he, the whole point of asking for the £500,000 which is non-refundable was to prove the buyers were serious, so that was all the due dilligence Fry needed to do. Would you run the risk of losing £500,000 if you thought you couldn't fund the purchase? As it is Fialka is now £500,000 worse off for his troubles and that was the risk he took, so don't go blaming Fry, he did exactly what anyone else would have done in that situation.
I don't either but rumour has it Crouch
paid it and it was not that amount of money.
kinkyboots70
says...
11:26am Wed 1 Jul 09
DJI
says...
11:30am Wed 1 Jul 09
If you read his statement, he states that they persuaded the backer on conceeding the Appeal and they were expecting to be in L1 for a few years, which suggests there was no such condition in the takeover for one year only as people keep saying.
Then you read MF's comments last week that "as far as he was aware" instead of "I have seen their proof of funds". So did Fry actually see proof of funds or not? And if not, why not? Because such inaction could now prove to be our undoing and bring about further sanctions.
As for SFC, why have they not operated as a business in all this. By not selling players earlier and selling season tickets, they are playing into the hands of the FL that they really were inextricably linked with SLH. As it appears they have not operated fully for the last few months, something they should have been doing. They should have signed the FL License and moved forward, to protect the assets and make the Company more viable as a going concern surely? Instead, procrastination has brought us to where we are this week and then PG watsed a further five weeks.
SomersetSaint
says...
11:31am Wed 1 Jul 09
curly99
says...
11:33am Wed 1 Jul 09
kinkyboots70
says...
11:38am Wed 1 Jul 09
curly99 wrote:after seeing his picture would you rent a flat from him?
Well take my hat of to the Echo for pointing out the Fialka was a con man.
Captain Swing
says...
11:41am Wed 1 Jul 09
Nothing to say wrote:Does that include you and me?
Yeah because we can all really trust what an un-named football league spokesman says can't we? BELIEVE NO ONE. THIS IS FOOTBALL, EVERYONE IN IT LIES THROUGH THEIR TEETH.
mastershot100
says...
11:44am Wed 1 Jul 09
SaintPaul wrote:But Pinnacle or Fialka did not put in £1/2m it was a third party that shall not be named.
Look guys Pinnacle paid £500,000 for their period of exclusivity and Fry let them have it, after all why wouldn't he, the whole point of asking for the £500,000 which is non-refundable was to prove the buyers were serious, so that was all the due dilligence Fry needed to do. Would you run the risk of losing £500,000 if you thought you couldn't fund the purchase? As it is Fialka is now £500,000 worse off for his troubles and that was the risk he took, so don't go blaming Fry, he did exactly what anyone else would have done in that situation.
kinkyboots70
says...
11:50am Wed 1 Jul 09
mastershot100 wrote:i reckon the third party was none other than fialka aka count von count mate big bird aka matt le tiss
SaintPaul wrote: Look guys Pinnacle paid £500,000 for their period of exclusivity and Fry let them have it, after all why wouldn't he, the whole point of asking for the £500,000 which is non-refundable was to prove the buyers were serious, so that was all the due dilligence Fry needed to do. Would you run the risk of losing £500,000 if you thought you couldn't fund the purchase? As it is Fialka is now £500,000 worse off for his troubles and that was the risk he took, so don't go blaming Fry, he did exactly what anyone else would have done in that situation.But Pinnacle or Fialka did not put in £1/2m it was a third party that shall not be named.
adam1981
says...
11:51am Wed 1 Jul 09
Hyper Charger wrote:eaxctly,other people just cannot read
"They have also stressed very firmly to the Echo that further points deductions against Saints were not being considered." Seems pretty clear to me!
Charismatic Andrew
says...
11:53am Wed 1 Jul 09
Hyper Charger wrote:Firstly, you've only got the Echo's word that they've been told no further points deductions are being considered. There's no mention of this in the quotes from the league spokesman.
"They have also stressed very firmly to the Echo that further points deductions against Saints were not being considered." Seems pretty clear to me!
Secondly, even if they're not considering it at the moment it doesn't mean they won't in the near future e.g. if they can't agree a CVA with the creditors.
montecristosaint
says...
11:59am Wed 1 Jul 09
DJI wrote:You are so right. But what really infuriates me is that Mark Fry a partner in Begbies Traynor clearly did not obtain independent confirmation that the required funds were in place prior to giving Pinnacle exclusivity.
I believe the FL statement as everything suggests that Pinnacle were under-funded, which is probably why Matt is not prepared at this stage to explain the full truth (see his statement yesterday). If you read his statement, he states that they persuaded the backer on conceeding the Appeal and they were expecting to be in L1 for a few years, which suggests there was no such condition in the takeover for one year only as people keep saying. Then you read MF's comments last week that "as far as he was aware" instead of "I have seen their proof of funds". So did Fry actually see proof of funds or not? And if not, why not? Because such inaction could now prove to be our undoing and bring about further sanctions. As for SFC, why have they not operated as a business in all this. By not selling players earlier and selling season tickets, they are playing into the hands of the FL that they really were inextricably linked with SLH. As it appears they have not operated fully for the last few months, something they should have been doing. They should have signed the FL License and moved forward, to protect the assets and make the Company more viable as a going concern surely? Instead, procrastination has brought us to where we are this week and then PG watsed a further five weeks.
This is icompetence of the highest order - it really is quite unbelievable and scarcely credible.
Unfortunately it leads me to suspect that Fry has no intention of selling the club on and has already in fact opted for asset stripping because the value of Saints assets exceeds all of the offers on the table for the club. In fact he has already started disposing of the club clubs players with SDurman having also left this morning with Llalana soon to follow no doubt.
I do not know if the the Echo reads these posts but I really do think it is high time the paper contacted Fry and asked for concrete detail as to the identity of the foreign bidders as well as the bids themselves . It is the only way that the fans and the city's interests can be protected from unscrupulous liquidators. Do not trust them!!
Hyper Charger
says...
12:04pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Charismatic Andrew wrote:Yeah, I get that but do you seriously reckon they would say the league had "stressed very firmly" to them if they were just making it up? It's too strong a statement imo.
Hyper Charger wrote: "They have also stressed very firmly to the Echo that further points deductions against Saints were not being considered." Seems pretty clear to me!Firstly, you've only got the Echo's word that they've been told no further points deductions are being considered. There's no mention of this in the quotes from the league spokesman. Secondly, even if they're not considering it at the moment it doesn't mean they won't in the near future e.g. if they can't agree a CVA with the creditors.
As for the CVA, the league would never give anyone a guarantee they wouldn't deduct further points if they could not satisfactorily agree one...it's in their rules that if you don't agree a CVA on exiting administration that you get a further deduction. No one would ever get that guarantee and no one should expect to get it. And the CVA is not an issue that would have surprised Pinnacle anyway (or shouldn't have)...everyone has known about that for years, so I don't buy that as an excuse at all!
ART
says...
12:10pm Wed 1 Jul 09
wraggster
says...
12:12pm Wed 1 Jul 09
/articles/southampto
n-deal-still-insists
-fialka
look at this
SaintPaul
says...
12:24pm Wed 1 Jul 09
wraggster wrote:Just read this article which if true just goes to prove that the Echo have masterminded yet another scheme to sell more papers, what's the betting later today the have 'breaking news' Pinnacle deal back on! So I was correct the FL are holding Pinnacle to ransom on the prospect of a further deduction, and they were serious as they did pay the staffs wages last week. Looking forward to the not so breaking news later Echo, this is becoming like a cheesey soap opera, oh so predictable!
http://www.thejc.com /articles/southampto n-deal-still-insists -fialka look at this
SaintPaul
says...
12:29pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Graham H
says...
12:32pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Bashfan
says...
12:33pm Wed 1 Jul 09
wraggster wrote:Likes to be anonymous when it suits him, doesn't he? Didn't throw his toys out of the pram when he spoke to the Jewish Chronicle.
http://www.thejc.com /articles/southampto n-deal-still-insists -fialka look at this
San Marco
says...
12:38pm Wed 1 Jul 09
I know that some, through desparation or mischief, are trying to stir up a 'Pinnacle deal still on' rumour but NO - it's finished.
I am also pleased that further points deductions are not on the agenda YET.
wraggster
says...
12:43pm Wed 1 Jul 09
San Marco wrote:Hope your not refering to me san marco i found this on bbc 606 site
I don't like the FL (particularly Mahwhinney) but I believe them on this. The line "clarification in regard to funding" sums it up. I know that some, through desparation or mischief, are trying to stir up a 'Pinnacle deal still on' rumour but NO - it's finished. I am also pleased that further points deductions are not on the agenda YET.
SaintPaul
says...
12:47pm Wed 1 Jul 09
wraggster wrote:This is all a tactic, in making it official they have withdrawn pinnacle have created a stand off which has wound up the FL who could now be shamed into backing down - hopefully.
San Marco wrote: I don't like the FL (particularly Mahwhinney) but I believe them on this. The line "clarification in regard to funding" sums it up. I know that some, through desparation or mischief, are trying to stir up a 'Pinnacle deal still on' rumour but NO - it's finished. I am also pleased that further points deductions are not on the agenda YET.Hope your not refering to me san marco i found this on bbc 606 site
Stormjuice
says...
1:51pm Wed 1 Jul 09
********************
To clarify, the sporting sanction, i.e. points deduction has been made in accordance with League regulations, which are put in place by the clubs themselves – The League merely administers them. An appeal is allowed with a specified period.
When a club suffers an insolvency event, e.g. administration, their share in The League is liable to be withdrawn under the terms of our Articles of Association. In other words their membership comes to an end. However, because we are in the business of trying to keep clubs alive, the Board operates a policy within the provisions of the Articles which suspends the withdrawal of a club’s share in order to give them a second chance – this is entirely in keeping with the law of the land.
Recent arbitration proceedings confirm The Football League has the right to impose conditions on a company that sees to join The League in this way. These conditions reflect the need to protect the integrity of the competition by ensuring that no club should be able to gain an advantage over its rivals by not paying its debts. Owners of football clubs will change over time, but the ‘club’ remains the same. It is the club which secures a competitive advantage from wiping out debt through insolvency proceedings, and therefore, it is only right that it is the club, regardless as to the identity of the new owners, that is made subject to any conditions.
The League has a responsibility to ensure all League clubs start the season - we would also clarify that throughout our discussions no conditions other than a waiver in regard to sporting sanctions have ever been raised with us as a major issue.
********************
SW11_Saint
says...
2:08pm Wed 1 Jul 09
I suspect their original backer pulled out and Fialka was rolled out to fill the void (not very well as it turned out!), or perhaps Fialka's little practical joke with Lynam just got out of hand...?
BertCatt
says...
2:29pm Wed 1 Jul 09
When this is over I may reveal who my 'source'is, or I may not!
Saintan
says...
3:17pm Wed 1 Jul 09
BertCatt wrote:With all that ambiguity - you MUST work for the echo!
My 'source' told me today that Fialka has connections with some team who mplay in Blue, in Hampshire. Also the F/L want Saints to expire, as most of them only can see this same team as the sole representative of League football, in southern Hampshire. As my 'source' told me th Pinnacle deal would not go through days ago, I'm inclined to believe them.
When this is over I may reveal who my 'source'is, or I may not!
If not - better sign him up guys - he's got all the qualities you admire in an investigative journalist!
Sholing 4 ever
says...
9:26pm Wed 1 Jul 09
click2find
adam1981 says...
9:52am Wed 1 Jul 09