I have to say this. I for one think we SHOULD be deducted 10 points.. Sorry!

[Viking Warrior]

Im just in from work and have only just seen the news.

 

So it would appear from the first poster on this thread we should accept the points deduction as others also agree. While we are at lets ask for 17pts deduction or was it 30 luton got. Im now resigned to the fact the club is well and truly doomed. Im looking forward to playing in div 2 in 2010/11 season.

 

But wait a minute The FL are consulting their legall bods over this matter. maybe the club haven't done anything wrong but in the eyes of some we have.

 

What will anger me more than anything about this whole matter, is if the club go to the wall and no longer exists. If we get points deducted then thats life, whats more important is keeping this football club alive , we need to have a bit of hope in order to get the club of the ventilator and out of intensive care.

 

Im going out tonight have to coach a hockey team and when I get in Im in to mind s whether to switch on the tv or this site to get the score. I might just go to bed and forget we had a game tonight.

 

God Im so depressed this evening.

 

Come watford put us out of our misery.

 

(Only joking reverse Psychology) every time I say saints will win they lose

[Flyer]

Please, please, please stop bringing this example up. There was no such thing as a points deduction until several months after this occurred. It is not a relevant precedent.

 

Thats very bad news for Saints, they cant even argue they should get off and cite that case if they pay 100% of the debts.

 

Looks like -10 at least, probably -27 if they dont satisfy the CVA and possibly even more points off of they get a penalty for trying to dodge the rules.

[sfcuk fan]

Whilst on the topic of morals I suGgest the 10 point deduction itself is morally wrong !!!

 

Everyone is struggling in the current economic gloom and what bugs me most ( speaking from experience here ) is that when the bailliffs knock on your door the £1000 you owe suddenly becomes double that with fees and charges etc .

 

Nothing like kicking a bloke when he's down is there :mad:

 

Personally, I feel for whatever reason the 10 point deduction was introduced it is itself morally wrong.

 

Its bad enough that we and many other clubs are in this embarrassing and devastating position .....

 

SO WHY KICK US WHEN WE'RE DOWN ........ IT SUCKS MAN

 

.

[Viking Warrior]

Just read your views derry

 

Thanks an excellent summary

[Saint Fan CaM]

I understand your position but I think you should consider the followng.

 

SFC were bought out in a reverse takeover by Secure Retirement, as a result SFC became a quoted public company.

 

The league/FA would not allow a football club to operate as a public company because the public company had to comply with public company rules not League rules eg not allowed to sue the football authorities but would accept the use of tribunals. The League required a completely separate independent company to be formed to run the football club.

 

Therefore to comply with the league criteria, SFC became SLH Ltd a plc then a wholly owned company became SFC Ltd, the football club in the league.

 

Irrespective of the wish to be even handed there are two important points, firstly the league themselves have caused this situation by insisting on the separation, secondly the football club is not in administration.

 

This enquiry is because the board, club directors, are not qualified to make a decision. Anybody that thinks the league haven't already legally dissected and come to a conclusion on this rule are naive.

 

They do know the answer but are ducking the decision to avoid flack from other clubs who cannot sue the league under the rules. That is why a legal enquiry has been convened so that under the league rules the committee can hold their hands up and say there is nothing that can be done.

 

It's not a holding company issue it's because SLH is a plc. If the league get this wrong they will get the pants sued off them by a public company.

 

The league know that and I bet the result will be "they are separate but we are going to look at the rules again."

 

 

Nail....head....hit square on. Perfect summary - saved me some typing there...thanks.

[derry]

I don't what all the fuss about deducting points is about. IF Saints have breached the FL rules, then points should be deducted, and no doubt will. If Saints haven't breached the FL rules, then points will probably not be deducted. There has been a set precident, and it is Derby County, who weren't deducted points when their parent company went in administration.

 

Anyone wringing their hands over the moral rights and wrongs will not change a thing. Just wait to see what happens.

 

spot on.

[Saintmike666]

Im just in from work and have only just seen the news.

 

So it would appear from the first poster on this thread we should accept the points deduction as others also agree. While we are at lets ask for 17pts deduction or was it 30 luton got. Im now resigned to the fact the club is well and truly doomed. Im looking forward to playing in div 2 in 2010/11 season.

 

I would certainly say that if after the Football League investigation Saints are found to have substantially gained by the administration of Southampton Leisure Holdings then really we should face some form of punishment yes. Purely because Southampton Leisure Holdings by its very essence is basically Southampton Football Club with another name.

 

But of course there is always the distinct possibility, as others have said, that SFC may have managed to squeeze out of that particular sh*t storm by exploiting a legal loop hole. Which is something that I, as a Saints fan, would of course accept. Not that I’d be particularly proud of it.

[derry]

I would certainly say that if after the Football League investigation Saints are found to have substantially gained by the administration of Southampton Leisure Holdings then really we should face some form of punishment yes. Purely because Southampton Leisure Holdings by its very essence is basically Southampton Football Club with another name.

 

But of course there is always the distinct possibility, as others have said, that SFC may have managed to squeeze out of that particular sh*t storm by exploiting a legal loop hole. Which is something that I, as a Saints fan, would of course accept. Not that I’d be particularly proud of it.

 

It's not a legal loophole. The league insisted that public companies were not allowed to be football clubs and the wholly owned company was formed to comply.

 

The league have brought this on themselves because they deny the clubs the right to sue them. SLH can.

[Gorgiesaint]

Thats very bad news for Saints, they cant even argue they should get off and cite that case if they pay 100% of the debts.

 

Looks like -10 at least, probably -27 if they dont satisfy the CVA and possibly even more points off of they get a penalty for trying to dodge the rules.

 

I may be wrong on this, but I believe it is oly when the Revenue & Customs are creditors that the CVA cannot be satisfied, and hence the extra penalty applies. As I understand it, our tax payments are up to date (although I have no proof).

[Torbay Saint]

The point deduction rule is lost on me. It seems to me that the only people it really punishes are the fans. We are the ones who suffer the affects of administration and then a further points deduction is so harsh. There was very little the average fan in the street can do about finiancial mismanagement and the members of the board have now had their punishments as their shares are now worthless.

 

But it is the fans that have to stomach the points deduction - this year and/or next when the responsible board(s) have long gone.

 

What has happened to Luton Town is unbelievable.

[s0108787]

isn't west ham's holding company in administration too?

[trousers]

OK, how many times does this need to be said. Derby went into administration BEFORE the 10 point deduction rule came into effect.

 

....and BEFORE the Football League made a hash of NOT closing the 'holding company' loophole

[Flyer]

I may be wrong on this, but I believe it is oly when the Revenue & Customs are creditors that the CVA cannot be satisfied, and hence the extra penalty applies. As I understand it, our tax payments are up to date (although I have no proof).

 

Probably up to date but I doubt they will be at the start of next season, Saints will have no income over they summer. and still have to pay the wages, mortgage etc.

[trousers]

Not that I’d be particularly proud of it.

 

Would you rather be "proud" and in league one or not proud and in the CCC? I don't think anyone is seeking any pride out of this mess.

[Saintmike666]

It's not a legal loophole. The league insisted that public companies were not allowed to be football clubs and the wholly owned company was formed to comply.

 

The league have brought this on themselves because they deny the clubs the right to sue them. SLH can.

 

I both understand and agree with most of what your saying.

 

But if you cant call it a legal loop hole then it can certainly described as exploitation of the rules to best gain an advantage. Which is of course constitutes sticking to the rules. But is slightly against the spirit of what the rules are supposedly supposed to mean and stand for.

 

It's true that any club in out position would of course be doing the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't be unhappy if we escaped without punishment. But like I've previously said, I wouldn't be particularly proud of it.

[Saintmike666]

Would you rather be "proud" and in league one or not proud and in the CCC? I don't think anyone is seeking any pride out of this mess.

 

If we've broken the rules (yet to be proven either way) or if we deserve to be in League one then so be it.

[ottery st mary]

Let us play to the referee and his whistle.....Rules are rules..If we have breached them so be it..-10 on its way...If not brazen it out and hope all the blooody referees are not playing for the opposition......Just wondered how they were before the directive.

 

Lets hope we win some games to lift the spirits.

[Guided Missile]

OK, how many times does this need to be said. Derby went into administration BEFORE the 10 point deduction rule came into effect.

I don't know where this myth came from. The Football League adopted the 10 point deduction rule on the 25th September, 2003 as this article reports:

 

Football league adopts new administration rules

 

Clubs that go into administration will be docked 10 points from next season, the Football League has finally decided.

 

 

Accountancy Age 26 Sep 2003

 

 

 

This decision was taken yesterday at an emergency meeting in Oxford where chairmen of Football League clubs voted to ratify the controversial proposal.

Its primary aim is to prevent a situation as happened at Leicester City FC from repeating itself.

Leicester City went into administration last year and used this process to wipe out all its debts before winning promotion to the Premier League without losing any of its top players.

League chairman Sir Brian Mawhinney announced the decision, saying: 'This is necessary because the Football League is the guardian of competitiveness in our divisions and we can't have clubs who go into administration gaining an advantage.

'It is a fundamentally different approach and there was a healthy debate - but I pay tribute to the clubs for attaching that significance to it.'

Clubs hit with the points deduction will have the right to appeal to an independent body.

 

Derby County went into administration in October, 2003...

Edited 7 April, 2009 by Guided Missile

[jimmysaint7]

OK, how many times does this need to be said. Derby went into administration BEFORE the 10 point deduction rule came into effect.

 

go on say it once more, i only say this because every article i read the administrator mentions derby setting the example ipswich too. maybe you should tell him if you know more

[um pahars]

I don't know where this myth came from. The Football League adopted the 10 point deduction rule on the 25th September, 2003 as this article reports:

 

Football league adopts new administration rules

 

Clubs that go into administration will be docked 10 points from next season, the Football League has finally decided.

 

 

Accountancy Age 26 Sep 2003

 

 

 

This decision was taken yesterday at an emergency meeting in Oxford where chairmen of Football League clubs voted to ratify the controversial proposal.

Its primary aim is to prevent a situation as happened at Leicester City FC from repeating itself.

Leicester City went into administration last year and used this process to wipe out all its debts before winning promotion to the Premier League without losing any of its top players.

League chairman Sir Brian Mawhinney announced the decision, saying: 'This is necessary because the Football League is the guardian of competitiveness in our divisions and we can't have clubs who go into administration gaining an advantage.

'It is a fundamentally different approach and there was a healthy debate - but I pay tribute to the clubs for attaching that significance to it.'

Clubs hit with the points deduction will have the right to appeal to an independent body.

 

Derby County went into administration in October, 2003...

 

But was it implemented the following season as the editorial part seems to suggest?????

 

Although people keep referring to Derby, I have yet to find any evidence that they did indeed manage to circumvent the league's "rules" on this (happy for someone to come up with something).

[trousers]

But was it implemented the following season as the editorial part seems to suggest?????

 

Although people keep referring to Derby, I have yet to find any evidence that they did indeed manage to circumvent the league's "rules" on this (happy for someone to come up with something).

 

Someone claiming to be a Derby fan posted the history behind he Derby situation a few days ago. Can't recall the user name. Will have a trawl.

[Guided Missile]

But was it implemented the following season as the editorial part seems to suggest?????

The points deduction was what was to be implemented the following season. The rule was adopted at an emergency meeting, FFS. Seems unlikely that they would have an emergency meeting and then enforce the adopted rule a season later, doesn't it?

[trousers]

Someone claiming to be a Derby fan posted the history behind he Derby situation a few days ago. Can't recall the user name. Will have a trawl.

 

Here it is:

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=246093#post246093

 

Empathy from an unexpected source......... Rams fan in peace.

 

Your situation is indeed very similar to the one we were in a few years back. We were £24M in debt and the Coop bank pulled the plug on the holding company. This is a replica of your current situation. Three men, later to be branded the 3 amigos by Rams fans bought the club for the princely sum of 3 pounds. They secured a £15M mortgage on Pride Park (the ground was all bought and paid for long before that), ostensibly to reduce the debts and to satisfy the Coop Bank. The "mortgage" was from the Panamanian ABC Corporation (who also lent cash to QPR and nearly bankrupted them too). The 3 Amigos ruled the roost for some two and a half years, permanently telling us that the debt was declining and that the club was trading at break even. In that time we were forced to sell Huddlestone and Rasiak for paltry sums in order to pay interest on time and the debt rose from £24M to around £54M. Again we were on the brink of extinction. Seven lifelong Derby fans who are also successful businessmen ploughed some £30M into buying out the 3 A´s and reducing the debt slightly. That consortium took the club back to the PL but couldnt (or wouldnt) finance the buying of the 6 to 8 genuine PL class players we needed to make a fight of it. Consequently we had the disaster that was known as the 2007/2008 season. Just over 18 months ago we got a new Chairman of Football, Adam Pearson, who had been responsible for getting Hull into shape. He came in and negotiated with the GSE group to take the club over. It is a consortium of many American and Canadian businessmen, most with a successful background in American Sports as well as in other business ventures, one of them was one of the founders of Yahoo. They took over and we are doing OK. We now have Nigel Clough at the helm who has got us playing proper football again and what looked like a disaster season looks like being saved and we can build from there. The debt will, in June, be down to £15M, the mortgage on the ground, and that debt is manageable.

 

In my lifetime (and I'm mid 50's) I've seen the Rams on the brink in the early 80's, early 90's and again for the past 5 seasons...... it's not nice having to face the prospect of your club going to the wall. Boards come and go but we Rams, and you Saints, were always there before them and will be there when they have long gone. I know some of what you are feeling, I empathise with you. I hope the club survives to fight another day and would love to see you stay up by by getting all 3 points at the Tree Huggers on the last day of the season to send them down in your stead.

 

As one of you said earlier, we are a precedent but...... after the 3 amigo deal there was Leeds and Boston who went into Admin once they knew they were already down. That caused the Football League to plug that particular loophole and to add the caveat that they held the right to scrutinise anything not covered by the rules and still take action against a club if the League thought it was warranted. What happened at Derby hasn't been "outlawed" by the League but they do now have the legal right to act differently should they so choose.

 

I hope they don't break the precedent. Good luck.

[um pahars]

Someone claiming to be a Derby fan posted the history behind he Derby situation a few days ago. Can't recall the user name. Will have a trawl.

 

Everything I have found suggests that the points deduction came into play at the start of the 2004/05 season

 

Crisis clubs to be docked 10 points

 

By Paul Brown

 

Friday, 26 September 2003

 

Nationwide league clubs that go into administration from the start of next season will be handed an automatic 10-point penalty under new rules agreed by the Football League yesterday.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/crisis-clubs-to-be-docked-10-points-581236.html

 

 

And I think the Derby issue was regarding their restructuring and administration in October 2003 (i.e. after the ruling, but before it came into effect).

[aintforever]

isn't west ham's holding company in administration too?

 

Yup

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/westham/3479812/West-Hams-future-in-doubt-after-holding-company-Hansa-goes-into-administration.html

 

The rules couldn't be clearer, I don't know if there is anything different with being in the Prem tho...

 

West Ham United plc are regarded as the member organisation by the Premier League, meaning that the possibility of a sporting sanction against the team, such as the deduction of points, could not be considered in respect of any financial issues relating to the holding company.

[teamsaint]

if we come out of admin with everyone paid up 100 % does the penalty still apply?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I don't agree that we deserve a points deduction because I don't accept the whole principle of this regulation in the first place .

 

This rule was brought in to deter clubs from recklessly overspending on players in order to gain an unfair advantage . Anyone with even the most limited understanding of this clubs financial situation will understand that the vast majority (around 80%) of our debt was incurred in the building St Mary's stadium - I would have thought the Football League and the FA would be in favour in that kind of investment in the games future rather than being in the business of punishing clubs for it .

 

To cut a very long & complicated story short the funding of a new stadium and (even more crucialy) the misfortune of being relegated from the PL shortly afterwards are the fundamental reasons we find ourselves in our current predicament , so do we deserve any further punishment for that ? - no I say .

[trousers]

I don't agree that we deserve a points deduction because I don't accept the whole principle of this regulation in the first place .

 

This rule was brought in to deter clubs from recklessly overspending on players in order to gain an unfair advantage . Anyone with even the most limited understanding of this clubs financial situation will understand that the vast majority (around 80%) of our debt was incurred in the building St Mary's stadium - I would have thought the Football League and the FA would be in favour in that kind of investment in the games future rather than being in the business of punishing clubs for it .

 

To cut a very long & complicated story short the funding of a new stadium and (even more crucialy) the misfortune of being relegated from the PL shortly afterwards are the fundamental reasons we find ourselves in our current predicament , so do we deserve any further punishment for that ? - no I say .

 

Totally agree.

 

Once again, an institution comes up with a sledgehammer rule to crack a nut, tarring everyone with the same brush in the process.

[exit2]

I also think we will get the ten points deduction and most people are forgetting one thing here. If SLH is totally "different" to SFC, and it is SLH that is insolvent and SFC that is solvent and still running as business, can someone tell me why people are asking for money for Southampton Football Club?

 

The reason being is that SFC is borderline insolvent. Thats why the FL will be looking into the accounts more closely. They will see that the football club has no money at all and is only keeping going at the moment with donations from the likes of LC / MR and what ever the fans give. You have some players deferring their wages, these guys do not get paid by SLH they are paid by the club

 

The SLH end of year reports show all the profits etc from player trading, sky money (when in the prem), gate receipts, advertising revenue etc etc. There is no difference what so ever here both are the same thing

 

I think we are resigned for -10

 

Sorry

[trousers]

The reason being is that SFC is borderline insolvent. Thats why the FL will be looking into the accounts more closely. They will see that the football club has no money at all and is only keeping going at the moment with donations from the likes of LC / MR and what ever the fans give.

 

But that's the nail-on-the-head in the case for the defence....i.e. yes, the football club is on the cusp of insolvency but it's not quite there....nearly but not quite....which is why, if a buyer comes in BEFORE we tip over the edge (in a couple of weeks) then we dont trigger the bankrupcy rule....in theory....

[exit2]

But that's the nail-on-the-head in the case for the defence....i.e. yes, the football club is on the cusp of insolvency but it's not quite there....nearly but not quite....which is why, if a buyer comes in BEFORE we tip over the edge (in a couple of weeks) then we dont trigger the bankrupcy rule....in theory....

 

Sorry but I dont buy it

 

Look on the Saints Website

 

"The Company" (SLH) is the holding company of a group whose principle activity is the operation of a professional football club

 

The corporate statement of SLH is

"To strive in partnership with all the clubs stakeholders to establish and maintain SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB as a finacially robust business. A business whose principle asset is a stylish and entertaingin football team"

 

you only have to look at the EOY reports to see that SLH is SFC

[INFLUENCED.COM]

If SLH is totally "different" to SFC, and it is SLH that is insolvent and SFC that is solvent and still running as business, can someone tell me why people are asking for money for Southampton Football Club?

 

SFC a 'subsidiary' is in danger of loosing a major tool of its trade being the stadium financed by SLH, I have HP agreements and am the registered owner of vehicles that my company use, if the repayments are not honoured my company do not experience default notices or CCJ's I do but, if reposessed, they are affected by my inability to keep up repayments and thus lose the ability to trade but if someone assumes the liability of those HP agreements and allow them the use of the vehicles, to facilitate their ability to generate revenue, its business as usual

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Sorry but I dont buy it

 

Look on the Saints Website

 

"The Company" (SLH) is the holding company of a group whose principle activity is the operation of a professional football club

 

The corporate statement of SLH is

"To strive in partnership with all the clubs stakeholders to establish and maintain SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB as a finacially robust business. A business whose principle asset is a stylish and entertaingin football team"

 

you only have to look at the EOY reports to see that SLH is SFC

 

You trying to save the FL a few quid ? let the forensic accountant make the determination

[um pahars]

You trying to save the FL a few quid ? let the forensic accountant make the determination

 

A few points:

 

1. I don't think the League or even the Forensic Accountant would visit this board, and

 

2. They would be fcking mental to take what goes up on here as gospel/genuine/well informed, and

 

3. There's just as many people on here saying we having not broken any rules.

 

I think it's safe to say the decision won't be made (or influenced) on this board!!!

[Ponty]

A few points:

 

1. I don't think the League or even the Forensic Accountant would visit this board, and

 

2. They would be fcking mental to take what goes up on here as gospel/genuine/well informed, and

 

3. There's just as many people on here saying we having not broken any rules.

 

I think it's safe to say the decision won't be made (or influenced) on this board!!!

 

Indeed.

 

...but just to be on the safe side...

 

It's pretty obvious that SFC and SLH are completely separate entities and anyone who says otherwise is a gimpoid.

[Ponty]

*That is for the benefit of the FA

[exit2]

*That is for the benefit of the FA

 

YOu made me chuckle and am I really a gimpoid

 

**** dont answer that!

[ottery st mary]

The experts will not need to read this forum..They have heard there is an expert amongst us...jonah will put them right and teach them a few things on the way.

 

Now is your time jonah...sock it to them.

[alpine_saint]

The experts will not need to read this forum..They have heard there is an expert amongst us...jonah will put them right and teach them a few things on the way.

 

Now is your time jonah...sock it to them.

 

Are you sure he's actually on the club's side ?

[Amesbury Saint]

Thats very bad news for Saints, they cant even argue they should get off and cite that case if they pay 100% of the debts.

 

Looks like -10 at least, probably -27 if they dont satisfy the CVA and possibly even more points off of they get a penalty for trying to dodge the rules.

 

thanks, that made me feel much better!!!!

[ottery st mary]

Are you sure he's actually on the club's side ?

 

I hope so he is our resident accountant...unless I have him mixed up with another jonah.

[alpine_saint]

I hope so he is our resident accountant...unless I have him mixed up with another jonah.

 

He seems more concerned for Lowe's financial well-being than SFC's..

[INFLUENCED.COM]

I think it's safe to say the decision won't be made (or influenced) on this board!!!

 

I think you under estimate the impact this forum has had on our fortunes, you only have to look at how many potential billionaire owners have pulled out because a poster was negative/abusive !!

[ottery st mary]

I think you under estimate the impact this forum has had on our fortunes, you only have to look at how many potential billionaire owners have pulled out because a poster was negative/abusive !!

 

 

I think some of the posters have been putting some of the players off their stride. Particularly the posters who have stayed away and shouted abuse from afar.

[SarniaSaint]

I understand your position but I think you should consider the followng.

 

SFC were bought out in a reverse takeover by Secure Retirement, as a result SFC became a quoted public company.

 

The league/FA would not allow a football club to operate as a public company because the public company had to comply with public company rules not League rules eg not allowed to sue the football authorities but would accept the use of tribunals. The League required a completely separate independent company to be formed to run the football club.

 

Therefore to comply with the league criteria, SFC became SLH Ltd a plc then a wholly owned company became SFC Ltd, the football club in the league.

 

Irrespective of the wish to be even handed there are two important points, firstly the league themselves have caused this situation by insisting on the separation, secondly the football club is not in administration.

 

This enquiry is because the board, club directors, are not qualified to make a decision. Anybody that thinks the league haven't already legally dissected and come to a conclusion on this rule are naive.

 

They do know the answer but are ducking the decision to avoid flack from other clubs who cannot sue the league under the rules. That is why a legal enquiry has been convened so that under the league rules the committee can hold their hands up and say there is nothing that can be done.

 

It's not a holding company issue it's because SLH is a plc. If the league get this wrong they will get the pants sued off them by a public company.

 

The league know that and I bet the result will be "they are separate but we are going to look at the rules again."

 

Excellent summary.

[SaintRobbie]

I also agree to a point.

 

However, football is such a competitive industry these days, where the smallest advantages count for so much. The likes of West Ham scandalously cheated their way to Premier League survival and it ended up only costing them £20m when they stood to lose more than double that if they were relegated.

 

You can guarantee that any other club in our situation would be doing everything possible to avoid a points deduction, and therefore I have no reason to argue against SFC from doing likewise.

 

If people don't like us, meh, big deal. We don't make the rules, the Football League knew about our ownership structure when we were relegated in 2005 and gave it the thumbs-up then, and they also knew about the loophole that may become evident if we were to have financial problems. They chose not to close that loophole - it's their problem.

 

I agree - yet to get an explanation from anyone as to why Derby (in similar circumstances) avoided the deduction but we may now not. Sorry ... but if the presedence has been set with Derby we too should avoid the penalty.

[um pahars]

I agree - yet to get an explanation from anyone as to why Derby (in similar circumstances) avoided the deduction but we may now not. Sorry ... but if the presedence has been set with Derby we too should avoid the penalty.

 

 

Everything I have found suggests that the points deduction came into play at the start of the 2004/05 season, and I think Derby went into Admin the season before the oints deuction rule was introduced.

 

Crisis clubs to be docked 10 points

 

By Paul Brown

 

Friday, 26 September 2003

 

Nationwide league clubs that go into administration from the start of next season will be handed an automatic 10-point penalty under new rules agreed by the Football League yesterday.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...ts-581236.html

 

 

 

And I think the Derby issue was regarding their restructuring and administration in October 2003 (i.e. after the ruling, but before it came into effect).

[Under Weststand]

This is a difficult one, seems to me the FL are trying to buy time. If we get a saviour within the next three weeks, who clears our football debt's or at least stands guarantor for them, they can then say that the football club were never in admin & as we are paying our way no points deduction will be levied. Also the relegation picture may be a lot clearer by the time the accounts are investigated.

Still feel that there will be a feeling amongst the FL that we should get a penalty & it will probably mean we start next season in Div 1 with a ten point penalty. Hope I'm wrong.

[Bailey]

I have to admit, I agree with the original post. We should be deducted 10 points in all honesty.

 

Southampton Leisure Holdings is very much Southampton Football Club, with the only difference being the names of each company! I'm sure this 'forensic investigation' that the Football League are going to conduct will prove this too.

 

How would you feel if you were a Luton fan? Or even a Bournemouth fan? The Football League have come down very hard on them, it would seem so unjust for us to 'get away with it' so to speak. I know our circumstances are slightly different, but the principal is still the same. I'd be very surprised if we didn't get a points deduction.

 

I've accepted that we'll be in League One next season, and so our league position this season will only decide whether or not we begin life in League One on -10 or 0 points.

 

Should we stay up this season, the Football League are likely to impose a 10-point deduction, which would effectively relegate us to the third tier of English football for the first time in god knows how long. If we get relegated this season, then the chances are, the 10-point penalty will be imposed at the beginning of next season, resulting in Southampton FC starting on -10 in League One. Bad news either way you look at it, but all this is assuming a deal is sorted to keep the club alive of course!

[St Landrew]

I have to admit, I agree with the original post. We should be deducted 10 points in all honesty.

 

Southampton Leisure Holdings is very much Southampton Football Club, with the only difference being the names of each company! I'm sure this 'forensic investigation' that the Football League are going to conduct will prove this too.

 

How would you feel if you were a Luton fan? Or even a Bournemouth fan? The Football League have come down very hard on them, it would seem so unjust for us to 'get away with it' so to speak. I know our circumstances are slightly different, but the principal is still the same. I'd be very surprised if we didn't get a points deduction.

 

I've accepted that we'll be in League One next season, and so our league position this season will only decide whether or not we begin life in League One on -10 or 0 points.

 

Should we stay up this season, the Football League are likely to impose a 10-point deduction, which would effectively relegate us to the third tier of English football for the first time in god knows how long. If we get relegated this season, then the chances are, the 10-point penalty will be imposed at the beginning of next season, resulting in Southampton FC starting on -10 in League One. Bad news either way you look at it, but all this is assuming a deal is sorted to keep the club alive of course!

 

I apologise in advance of what I'm about to say but, what piffling twaddle. And I say that in full recogniition that you and I feel that Saints should play fair, and take their punishment, if justified. And that last bit is where we differ. Let's leave it to the Football League and stop arguing the toss.