SaintBobby

Reading Jeremy Wilson's Telegraph piece and listenign to Mark Fry, I do have some confidence that we might be able to rescind the 10-point penalty. Another question for knowledgeable forum members, though: Aren't there some practical (even contractual) barriers to Saints seeking legal redress through the law courts? I seem to recall that many sports have arrangements set up to prevent/penalise/deter recourse to the law. If we appeal to the stuffed suits of the FL, I give us a snowball's chance in hell. If we get in front of a court, our chances must be measurably enhanced.

This was an idea I sent to David Luker, and got a fairly positive reply: Dear David, I wanted to drop you a short note about next season’s ticket prices. I know the whole future of the club remains very uncertain and my thanks go to you and our other staff for continuing to do such an excellent job in such trying circumstances. My thinking for League One, runs something like this: There’s a loyal base of maybe 10,000 fans and if the prices are relatively high, they will be rattling around in a largely empty stadium. Cutting ticket prices to, say, £10 a game might mean high attendances but would mean the “hard core” are spending much LESS on tickets than they are otherwise willing to (I’m probably willing to pay £500 for a season ticket even in League One – but obviously wouldn’t just hand over extra money for the sake of it if the listed price is, say, £250) Because of the club’s diminished league status and the wider prevailing economic environment, the corporate suites are likely to have considerable spare capacity next season. My solution would be to issue “gold season tickets” in addition to standard season tickets. These would retail at about twice the price – say c.£500 rather than c. £250. The principal benefit of “gold membership” would be that for a certain number of games per-season (say, four or five), you could upgrade to the Mike Channon - or one of the other - hospitality suites. The marginal cost to the club of using this spare capacity must be pretty minimal (I’m assuming an average spare capacity of about 200 seats in corporate per game). If, say, 1,000 fans were willing to take out gold membership, this would increase revenues by £250,000 next season. There could be other possible benefits of gold membership too – for example: Advance booking of away tickets (this might be very valuable in League One, given the very limited capacity of many of the stadia – but again costs the club nothing). List of gold members printed in the first programme of the season Special access to other benefits – a “meet the players evening”, chances to win a signed ball/shirt etc. I know you have more immediate worries to concentrate on, but would appreciate any thoughts you may have. With all best wishes,

Interesting on the Wessex league - what tier is that? Equivalent of division 9 or 10 or something? Maybe I over-stated the likelihood or promotion from L2 (or chances of relegation from L1) in my original post. But clearly, at some point, the balance tips to being better off in a lower division. -20? -30? -40?

Sure, but the problem is that the points deduction and your likelihood to do well are not independent events. If you're starting on, say -30 points, this indicates: 1. You're almost certainly financially screwed, so are unlikely to have a "top 6" team in terms on quality on the pitch. 2. Notwithstanding your finances, you're going to find it hard to attract/retain any decent players, as they will know at the outset that promotion is basically impossible and relegation is pretty damned likely.

As I say, I don't know what the rules are. But I think they should provide for choice. Forcing a club, hypothetically, to start the season on -100 points is worse than relegatign them down to the next division.

What lottery numbers are you picking this week, delldays? I'll make a point of avoiding them.

I think there is precedent for this, when Swindon were knocked down a league after having been had up for irregular betting. I think their place went to the play-off runners-up. Presumably, if we did start in League 2, a relegated team would be spared or the play-off runners-up promoted to League 1. Other examples include teams being denied promotion because their stadium doesn't pass muster. I don't think it's always best to fight it out in the highest league you can. Not sure where the cut-off is, but at a starting point of -30, relegation is almost unavoidable.

Didn't the League accuse SLH of hindering their enquiries?

I think there was some serious rumour that we'd approached Blue Square as a plan B, or did I get that totally wrong?

Superb article. Really highlights the problems in football finances. The equalisation formula in US sports sits in stark contrast to the tedium and unhealthiness of the "big four" in British football. How many different teams have won the baseball World Series in the last fifteen years? The real problem is that the whole economy of football is now club-based. Major decisions are therefore made based on the narrow interests of Man Utd, Chelsea etc., rather than in the wider interests of the sport. Everyone's focused on trying to maximise their slice of the pie rather than actually trying to grow the pie. Formula 1 has many faults, but at least it has changed its rules and format to make it genuinely competitive. Football must do the same.

Assuming all goes well, we start in League One next season at -10. If things go very well and we win the appeal, we may even start at zero. But - heaven forbid - if for some reason further points penalties apply and we have to start at -17 or even -30 points, is there any circumstance in which Saints could opt to start in League 2 with a clean sheet? Personally, I think I'd prefer to start in League 2 at zero than League 1 at -17 or worse. In the latter scenario, we have mid-table mediocrity as the height of our ambition and quite possibly face relegation. In the former scenario, we probably win the division and almost certainly get promoted (given the 4 up, 4 down situation). So we'd start 2010-11 in League 1 on an "up" rather than in League 2 on a "down" Anyone know the rules? (I assume there's a rule against - as I'd have guessed Luton would have preferred to play in Blue Square at 0 rather than League 2 at -30 this season).

GM, what is you're understanding of the circumstances in which the Saints players and/or their registration with SFC become worthless as assets? I don't profess to know the detail, but believe Clapham Saint is basically right. If SLH is smashed up - and its assets effectively put under the hammer at auction - I don't believe this would include ANY of the players. My understanding is that they would be released form their contracts and become free agents - but even if they didn't, they are hardly assets which can just be flogged off to the highest bidder (in the way that Jacksons Farm or Staplewood would be). If....to develop the McGoldrick example...Notts Forest offer £500,000 for him and Swansea offer three quid, but DMcG himself says he is not willing to play for Notts Forest, well then, we only get three quid for him. We can't force players to go to the highest bidder. Even assuming that the players would remain assets of the club/company (which I doubt), their value would be virtually zero.

I do find some of the reactions on here amusing - not picking on matron's message here particularly. The most side-splitting are those imploring fellow posters to "calm down for a few days", "sit back and wait for more news etc". It's almost as if some people think or believe that members of this forum are in some way relevant to the present processes of finding a new owner. If Mark Fry and others involved in the ACTUAL PROCESS are throwing tantrums, making threats, spreading smears or leaping to conclusions on threadbare information, I'd be worried. If posters do that on here, it really doesn't matter a jot. I take the same view of people "spinning"...derry, it really doesn't matter. The decision is not some form of online poll of Saints fans, it's a hard-haeded business decision made by Mark Fry. You really don't need to "draw lines in the sand". That really is pompous and self-important. This isn't the bloody Alamo FFS.

He's been disappointing. But nowhere close to our worse ever signing.

I agree. Kind of strange (and flattering) that we have had so much more coverage than Charlton and Norwich.

Good shout on Paul Ince. If Wotte goes, I'd be more than happy with him. Not sure on the 6 year reign concept though. I feel like a hypocrit having always argued for more stability in football - but if the club is going to rise again, I'd say we need quite a churnover on playing staff and coaching. The team/manager to get us promoted out of League One may not be the same as the team/manager to get us to do well in the CCC. A good team/manager in the CCC might need to be radically changed again to survive in the Premiership. I do think they should be a (Stalin-like) five year plan though - on and off the pitch. 2009-10: Consolidate in League One and stabilise off-pitch situation 2010-11: Promoted to the CCC and run club at break even 2011-12: Consolidate in CCC and grow fanbase to average attendance of c. 24K 2012-13: Promotion push in CCC but not "going for broke" 2013-14: Promoted to Premiership

Ten points is a big, big starting disavantage. I wouldn't say it makes promotion impossible, by any means, but it raises the bar enormously. I think our chances of promotion are considerably less than half of what they would have been without the -10.

I don't think they've been cynical - just that they have gone into admin when the points penalty is totally irrelevant to them. This is a serious loophole in the rules. I'm certainly not unsympathetic to Stockport. I don't want any club to go into admin (unless, possibly it made a tangible difference to Saints), but the present rules are not equitable. Possibly not even clear.

I'm not sure it's "make or break" at all. It's easy to say these things every time a new (possible) vacancy arises, but - on the pitch - I'm not so sure "make or break" sums up our next season (off the pitch, possibly...on the pitch, less so). Decent consolidation In League One would not be a bad outcome. Promotion would be a triumph. If things go right, we might scrape into the paly-offs, I guess. There's a case for sticking with Wotte - and seeing where we are in Januaray 2010.

You're right, the deduction doesn't make a difference to Stockport. They have merely gone from meaningless mid-table to meaningless-lower-table. The "does it make a difference?" appears only to apply to clubs in the releagtion zone from what I can see. That's arbitray and unfair. Suppose a team was in 3rd place,six points away from automatic promotion but in the play-offs with a fifteen point cushion, with one game to go. My understanding is that the League will allow them to take the 10 point penalty there and then....even though this means they are STILL in the post-season play-offs.

I don't know how the mortgage is secured - I assume it's against the stadium. I think the overdraft at Barclays is unsecured. My understanding, as a layman, is that the writing off - or downscaling - of debts would hardly be a novelty. How many other toxic debts have Aviva and Barcalys downscaled or written off this year? Also, in credit crunch times, a cash offer up front is attractive. There's a big difference (isn't there?), between offering £5m in cash now to write off the mortgage and renegotiating the mortgage down to £5m and promsie to pay the mortgage payments of c. £250,000 a year. I'm interested in finding out about the Ipswich example - if true that they got their mortgage down from more than £23m to just £7m, this seems a good guide.

To some degree, I guess that's true. But, I think Saints would probably still have the upper hand in terms of brinkmanship. We do have, at a desperate pinch, the option of, say, seeking a ground-share with Bournemouth or Reading. Like most fans, I'd hate this - but it might bring Aviva back to the negotiating table pretty fast...

This is a very good point. The absurdity of the rule is that Stockport have effectively "done a Leeds", by taking a deduction now that is (almost) totally irrelevant. I would have thought the rule should be: 1. If you go into admin before 1st April, you take the penalty this season. 2. If after the 1st April, you take it next season. 3. If you go into admin on April Fool's day (as Saints did), you take no penalty at all! :-) I wonder whether the general confusion and nonsense surrounding the rules might help Saints in their appeal?

I'm no expert in negotiating away mortgages on football stadia - but I think CB Fry is right. It is Aviva who are over a barrel here. St. Mary's stadium is basically a worthless asset, otehr than to the owners of Southampton Football Club. It's not like me trying to negotiate a 75% reduction in the mortgage on my flat. The building society would just laugh, take the keys and flog to it one of (many, many thousands) of possibly interested buyers. There are no realistically imaginable buyers of SMS, other than Saints. If the club goes under, Aviva will not get anything for a repossesed stadium and would probably incur running costs relating to security etc. I think in the lingo, this is what they call a "toxic debt". The putative new oweners of Saints are also helped by the present low interest rates. If a new board was able to offer £5m up front now to write off the mortgage, that's pretty attractive to Aviva I'd guess.

I think your third point is wrong. If Saints had stayed up by more than ten points, the penalty would have applied THIS season and we would have started next season at zero points in the CCC.