Matthew Le God Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 I seem to recall the last time Pompey went into admin in 2010, Southampton chairman Nicola Cortese said he would take issue if they didn't get a points deduction when Southampton did. What about this time? i) 2nd April 2009 Southampton FC's parent company Southampton Leisure Holdings enters administration. Mark Fry, Southampton Leisure Holdings Administrator "I'm not administrator of the football club, I'm administrator of the holding company". "Distinct separate legal entities". Sound familiar? Similar to what the CSI administrator's have been saying. Accountancy firm sent into the club. 21 days later... Football League announce 10 points deducted ii) 29th November 2011 Portsmouth FC's parent company CSI enter administration. Accountancy firm sent into the club. 52 days later... Nothing! (yet) ................................................. Exhibit A "Akers told the Guardian that Antonov has invested around £10.5m into Portsmouth to pay for transfer fees and underwrite players' wages since CSI bought the club." http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/29/portsmouth-parent-company-administration So the club was given £10.5m which it then spent on improving the squad in the summer of 2011 buying Varney, Huseklupp, Norris, Pearce etc. CEO David Lampitt even boasted on the Pompey website that they had been the Championship's "second highest net spenders in the summer". The administrator now admits the club doesn't have funding for the rest of the season. It was clearly dependant on more external money being put into it in order to pay wages and debts for the rest of the season. "Inextricably linked"? Exhibit B 30th November 2011- CSI Administrator Andrew Andronikou - "I can't see how the club can be deducted points." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15963854.stm Exhibit C 17th December 2011 -CSI Administrator Andrew Andronikou - "Hopefully, next week we will have sold one of the companies owned by CSI to allow us to invest some capital into the club." http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Portsmouth-face-administration-and-points-deduction-again-article844184.html Why does the club need money from another of CSI's businesses? Does that not make CSI and Portsmouth FC "inextricably linked"? Exhibit D 19th January 2012 - Joseph Cala former prospective owner who would have seen the books - “Portsmouth have eight players who earn £1.1 million a month between them. That is in a league with an average budget of £8 million a year,” he said. “Without these eight players the club is healthy, in fact it would be profitable." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/9021385/Joseph-Cala-the-Man-from-Atlantis-confident-of-Portsmouth-deal.html If what he says is true, then the club isn't healthy and isn't profitable and is reliant on external cash to keep going. Exhibit E Those connected at Portsmouth have attempted to make out the situations are different. Both Southampton Leisure holdings and CSI had other none football related businesses. The other main CSI company was North One which has now lost the World Rally rights.... http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/North-One-Sport-loses-WRC-commercial-rights,35337.html Why are no journalists questioning this? If not national ones, then at least the Daily Echo or BBC Radio Solent should dig into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalek2003 Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 I made a similar point recently. If WHAM carry on the way they do there is a serious chance of another club who should not only have points deducted but should also go bankrupt ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambol2K9 Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 Thats a good post, well researched. There's definitely some questions to be answered, it seems to me that this is a clear case of a points deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 Although I take your point I think the main difference wass Southampton Leisure Holdings only had football interests whilst Portsmouth FC's parent company CSI had other interests apart from football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 January, 2012 Although I take your point I think the main difference wass Southampton Leisure Holdings only had football interests whilst Portsmouth FC's parent company CSI had other interests apart from football That argument Pompey have been using doesn't stack up, Southampton Leisure Holdings did have non football related companies. CSI's main non football related company has lost the rights to the World Rally Championship. With that gone North One is worthless, yet CSI still remains in admin. What is keeping it there if Pompey are solvent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNSUN Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 If they don't get deducted points and there are overwhelming similarities between the two of our situations, then we should be looking for financial compensation at the very least. That said I think the league just hasn't got around to it yet, and they'll be deducted points this season; if the league wants to warn clubs to try not to get into financial mess, then each club that does should be made an example of, as we were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 This is a nice compilation, but the question is more relevant to Portsmouth than Southampton, I've copied it to here. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts