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

[.comsaint]

If we do get away with no points deduction AND escape relegation - we're gonna need a new song for next season. may I suggest - to the tune of the Millwall faithful:

 

"We're Southampton

We're Southampton

No one likes us

we don't care..."

[RinNY]

As I've said in the title.

 

Now lets just get the obvious out of the way first, I'd consider myself to be a huge Saints fan. I travel down from were I live in the Midlands as much as possible to get to the home games. In fact this season I've been to 20 games home and away, which I think is a pretty reasonable tally for someone who lives so far away. Just thought I'd clear that one up.

 

BUT none the less, as a football fanatic in general I think that Southampton, like any other club in the land has to abide by the set rules. The fact that its the 'Holding Company' that has gone into administration and not the club can surely only be viewed as a technicality in this case, after all SFC is SLH in every way but the name.

 

I think its incredibly sad its come to this, but ultimately why should we get away without punishment when others haven't? I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion! Either way, I don't think that we'll stay up this season, there's just not enough about the team to do it. Which would mean starting next season in League One on minus 10 points. Well I say so be it! Its the rules, its morally right and as much as it pains me to say, its the way it should be.

 

I agree with a lot said in this article -

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/samgreen/blog/2009/04/07/football_league_must_deduct_10_points_from_southampton

 

But its also my opinion that Saints will come back, maybe not straight away, but in time with the right backers this great club will rise back up from the depths of League 1 and eventually re-claim its place in the Premiership, we just have to put up with a little more pain first...

 

 

 

Why should Derby County have got away with going into administration and avoiding the 10 point penalty, and we don't? Do you want to retroactively deduct 10 points from Derby? The rules are what they are, and should be administered as they are. If there is an inappropriate loophole, let it be closed; but the League have had plenty of time since Derby to closer it and have not done so.

 

Moreover, why should any club that has been managing its business with reasonable care and prudence, but gets hit by the effects of relegation and a massive economic recession, and suffers a fiscal crisis as a result, get hit with a ten point penalty as well?? Any club at all, not just us ... It's not as if Saints have "done a Leeds" or anything close. What we did do is build a modern premiership stadium when we were in the Prem, and pay players Prem wages when we were in the Prem, and try to take advantage of the Prem parachute payments to win promotion after we were relegated. I don't see anything in this to merit points deductions.

 

Truth is, the whole system is massively skewed and flawed: I say if for once it should turn out to be flawed slightly in our favour, there is nothing wrong morally or in any other way to accepting that gladly.

[alki_in_korea]

i think with this enquiry we would have had a better chance of proving that SLH is not just a football company if we still had the insurance company and radio station as then they could say they are involved in many different bussinesses. Problem is SLH only bussiness is the football, so i reckon it would be hard to prove we are nay different from if a chairmen put the club into admisnitration.

 

I have no idea of the leagal side of things at all as you can probably tell but that is just the way i see it.

[Saintmike666]

Why should Derby County have got away with going into administration and avoiding the 10 point penalty, and we don't? Do you want to retroactively deduct 10 points from Derby? The rules are what they are, and should be administered as they are. If there is an inappropriate loophole, let it be closed; but the League have had plenty of time since Derby to closer it and have not done so.

 

Moreover, why should any club that has been managing its business with reasonable care and prudence, but gets hit by the effects of relegation and a massive economic recession, and suffers a fiscal crisis as a result, get hit with a ten point penalty as well?? Any club at all, not just us ... It's not as if Saints have "done a Leeds" or anything close. What we did do is build a modern premiership stadium when we were in the Prem, and pay players Prem wages when we were in the Prem, and try to take advantage of the Prem parachute payments to win promotion after we were relegated. I don't see anything in this to merit points deductions.

 

Truth is, the whole system is massively skewed and flawed: I say if for once it should turn out to be flawed slightly in our favour, there is nothing wrong morally or in any other way to accepting that gladly.

 

With all due respect your post is 'skewed and flawed'. Derby went into administration before the 10 point deduction became a mandatory rule. Which has already been said on numerous occasions on this thread so far. It isn't a comparable example.

[Torrent Of Abuse]

With all due respect your post is 'skewed and flawed'. Derby went into administration before the 10 point deduction became a mandatory rule. Which has already been said on numerous occasions on this thread so far. It isn't a comparable example.

 

I might be wrong but I think he was commenting on the fact that we are all discussing whether it is "morally" unacceptable to escape a punishment simply because you are not "legally" culpable. Derby were as morally guilty of flouting the rules for going into administration as any other club, and yet you would probably be hard-pressed to find any of their supporters apologising for it. If we are not found legally liable for a 10 point deduction, then that would put us in the same boat as Derby. It surely wouldn't matter when the "so-called tighter" rules came in: If the original rules failed to cover Derby's move into administration and these rules failed to cover ours, then the outcome should be the same - no penalty, no guilt, no shame.

 

That said, I can see our incomparable talent for fncking things up leading to us getting relegated and then fighting all summer long to avoid a points deduction only to have it applied on the very eve of the new season. Then the very fact that we contested the deduction will see us detested at every club in L1 as if we actually had escaped punishment.

 

So that would be nice...

[stinhk]

SFC is not in administration (yet), no rules have been broken so no penalty is warranted. Simple.

 

Regardless, if you somehow manage to overlook the rules - surely we haven't even breached the spirit of the rules because as pointed out previously they were introduced to deter clubs from seeking an on-field advantage through financial recklessness. (It would be a stretch to argue SMS as giving us an on-field advantage given our home form!)

 

I would say on both counts - not guilty.

[SNSUN]

I would rather see the club get deducted 10 points, than 20 for being sneeky and trying to find a loophole.

 

That said, if we can escape a points deduction, expect backlash from the fans of other clubs, particularly if we stay up. If we go down? Well I'd just like to see us start on a level playing field next season.

[Red Stripe]

Just got this horrible feeling that because they tried to pull a fast one regarding the Holding Company, the FL will take a dim view and make it more than 10 points! In any case, got to keep winning and even if the worst happens, make sure we're docked this season.

[trousers]

SFC is not in administration (yet), no rules have been broken so no penalty is warranted. Simple.

 

Regardless, if you somehow manage to overlook the rules - surely we haven't even breached the spirit of the rules because as pointed out previously they were introduced to deter clubs from seeking an on-field advantage through financial recklessness. (It would be a stretch to argue SMS as giving us an on-field advantage given our home form!)

 

I would say on both counts - not guilty.

 

Absolutely. If the Football League revisit their own reasons for introducing the rules in this area in the first place then Southampton Football Club is "not guilty". Indeed, the PLC thing is a red herring at the end of the day IMO.

 

If the Football League somehow find us guilty then they are actually shooting down the very reason why they invented the 'financial prudence' rules in the first place.

 

As our governing body, they should be publicly supporting our plight to highlight why their rules were introduced rather than defaulting to a vindictive "we'll get the buggers" position.

 

Aren't governing bodies there to support the clubs in their leagues rather than bring them down?

 

If I can't pay my mortgage due to losing my job then I should be treated differently to not being able to pay my mortgage due to blowing my wages on gambling, drinking, etc.

 

Come on Football League. Look at WHY you introduced the law in the first place rather than persuing the futile exercise of fine-toothcombign the small print. You're missing the point!!!

Edited 8 April, 2009 by trousers

[Secret Site Agent]

Agreed, if they do not apply the -10 pt rule other clubs will be up in arms and others will also be using the loophole in the future.

 

If admin was so close as it is now apparent it was, sfc should have gone for the -10pts before the deadline. A masterstroke it was not, another very bad gamble it was.

 

I think the league should investigate, as they are doing, and if there was no deliberate or malicious act then they should not impose the -10 points as this is not a breach of the rules, and then close the loop hole to ensure that it cannot be done again. The trouble with loopholes is that they are perfectly acceptable way to find a way around a rule/law.

 

Case in point, (or 2 cases as it were)

 

Case 1: Parking ticket and tow away charge of £250.00 issued to an individual in the borough of (a London Council) for parking incorrectly in a disabled bay, (i.e. over the lines). Disabled person argues that he wasn’t, the London Council say that he was, fine now £350.00. Poor disabled guy, a veteran of our last foray in the gulf gets taken to court with single lawyer on a freebie against the London Council’s team of five legal heads. Along comes smarmy old SSA with his copy of the 'The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994' and makes the statement 'Hey, stop all the fussing and the feuding, according to my statuary instrument, the disabled bay markings are not as per this legal book, therefore you cannot enforce them as they are not legal bays.In my professional opinion.' Case dismissed. It is a loophole, as the offence is 'not parking within the constraints of the parking bay' whatever size they are, and that is how councils and the police get away with the minor non-endorsable offence fines that fall within the gray area, by actually paying the fine you are admitting the crime.

 

Case 2: It also works for the police when you get pulled over by a non traffic car with no speed measuring equipment and they say that you were suspected on doing, say 40 in a 30. You do the calculation and you think

"Hey, the police legal allowance is that 30 mph speed limit, allow 10 per cent, plus 2 mph margin'

Then you blurt out,

'No, officer I was going at 35 Miles per hour and you guidelines let me do it'

Which is true, as if you were clocked at this you wouldn't get pulled over as the inaccuracies of the speedometer lend themselves to this, and they would have a hard time bringing this to court. But BANG. The speed limit is 30; you have just admitted to doing 35 mph, therefore you have admitted breaking the law. A loophole as they cannot prove you were doing 35 mph, but you have made a confession.

 

I can go on all day with different scenarios on loopholes but they do exist, they are exploited legitimately and the solution is to just close them once someone has exploited them, not try and find a way around letting their exploitation of a failing in the rules stand, or should I say looking to find a loophole that allows you to not accept their loophole.

 

Therefore, Don't hit us with -10, but ensure that no one can use that excuse again.

[londonsaint1604]

I think its incredibly sad its come to this, but ultimately why should we get away without punishment when others haven't?

 

Simple. Because the circumstances are slightly different and we have technically not broken the rules yet in terms of the FC going into administration. The football league should have thought about this before and closed the loophole but they didn't so we just got lucky.

[RinNY]

With all due respect your post is 'skewed and flawed'. Derby went into administration before the 10 point deduction became a mandatory rule. Which has already been said on numerous occasions on this thread so far. It isn't a comparable example.

 

 

The suggestion was that "morally" we are culpable and should take the hit. My point is that the rule is badly written, and as written is arbitrary and unfair; if that unfairness can be used in our favour instead of to our harm, good for us!

 

Let's be clear: the 10 point deduction rule exists to prevent clubs from spending recklessly in order to get a competitive advantage, and then using administration to walk away from their recklessness unharmed, prompted by Leicester's overspending, administration, and subsequent promotion. Our case is not that at all: we built a new stadium in order to try to remain competitive with other clubs while in the Prem. Unfortunately, that stadium became a fiscal albatross after we were relegated. There was some further imprudence, no doubt, but nothing reckless, nor anything that would have seen us in administration now but for the recession.

 

So if a rule that would hit us unfairly has a loophole that we can use to avoid being hit, there is nothing wrong with us taking it. The league, once again, knew all about the possibility of our situation arising because thety had the case of Derby County in front of them, and they still chose to write the rules as they did and leave them as written. Case closed.

[SFKA South Woodford]

I received this message from a friend of mine who is a Luton supporter and used to run their club website and was closely involved with the club, so what he says here should be fairly near the truth of their situation. See below.

 

Sorry but you're now going to be subjected to an explanation as to what has happened to LTFC in recent years. It's complicated but to understand why we feel so angry with the FA and the FL all of these points have to be understood. I'll do this in two parts. Part two might come later on when I get the time! ;-)

 

No other club in the history of the football league have had to endure what we have had to go through this season:

 

(i) 10 points deducted (by the FA) for things done by the previous holding company rather than the football club

 

(ii) 20 points deducted (by the FL) for coming out of administration without a Creditors Voluntary Agreement (17 points + 3 points)

 

Of course, there's much more to it than first meets the eye. I'll discuss point (i) first:

 

Some agent's fees over 3 years ago were paid via the holding Company (Jayten) rather than via the Football Club. From a purely business and accounting perspective there is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal in doing this. It was all run through the proper accounting systems - no tax avoidances, no 'bungs'. However, it broke a technical FL rule that states that agents fees have to go through the Football club's books so the FA can audit how much clubs are paying to agents.

 

The reason it was done this way was to hide agent fees from the then manager (Mike Newell) who had completely lost the plot as a manager and was waging a war against agents saying they 'took too much money out of the game'. I'll come back to this statement later. The MD at the time didn't want the confrontation with the manager, and this was his resolution. The club secretary pointed out to him that this was breaking FL rules and was told to mind her own business. She then took it upon herself to report this to the FL. If she hadn't, they would not have known anything about it. (Note that every Luton fan believes she did the right thing in telling the FA).

 

I also believe that one or two of the agents were also not officially registered with the FA or the FL, but as these people were introduced to LTFC as the player's agents then they had no reason to doubt them at the time.

 

It also needs to be ponted out that none of the above gave LTFC any 'on the field' advantage. If they had simply paid those fees through the football club's books then the result would have been the same (unlike the West Ham situation when they signed Tevez et all, breaking football league rulkes *and* gaining an on-the-field advantage by playing players they shoudln't have been allowed to sign).

 

Now, bare in mind that these dealings via the holding company were done over 3 years ago. It was reported to the FA straight away, yet it still took the governing bodies a further 18-24 months to get around to dealing with the issue. By that time, we had been relegated twice and had a 10 point deduction for going into administration. The dodgy MD saw what was coming and persuaded someone else to step in and take over the running of the club. 'Due diligence' was taken before the take-over was official, and within a few months the new chairman realised that he had been lied to and that the financial state of the club was far worse than he had been told or been allowed to see. He then forced the other director's to resign and put the club into administration (it was allegedly losing 400,000 a month).

 

So, we go into administration and have to pay an administrator for 9 months to run the club (coating approx 1 million quid!!). A number of players are sold by the administrator, who then sacks the manager as well. A consortium setup by LTFC fans eventually wins control of the club.

 

The 2020 consortium is then hit by the FA with a 10 point fine for breaking a technical rule, despite the fact that no advantage was gained as a result, no 'cheating' (as some very ignorant fans from other clubs have stated) was involved at all. West Ham avoided a points deduction because it was related to things done by a previous regime and that it wouldn't be 'fair' on the club or the supporters. Fair? What do the governing bodies know about being fair?

 

A fair outcome would have been a warning and a suspended 10 point penalty (say for three seasons). The perpetrators of the 'crime' (and I use the term loosely) were fined about £5,000 and banned from running a football club. Big deal!!

[Oz]

i agree

[jasonbenali]

We now have been according to the football league. Ouch.

[madsent]

As I've said in the title.

 

Now lets just get the obvious out of the way first, I'd consider myself to be a huge Saints fan. I travel down from were I live in the Midlands as much as possible to get to the home games. In fact this season I've been to 20 games home and away, which I think is a pretty reasonable tally for someone who lives so far away. Just thought I'd clear that one up.

 

BUT none the less, as a football fanatic in general I think that Southampton, like any other club in the land has to abide by the set rules. The fact that its the 'Holding Company' that has gone into administration and not the club can surely only be viewed as a technicality in this case, after all SFC is SLH in every way but the name.

 

I think its incredibly sad its come to this, but ultimately why should we get away without punishment when others haven't? I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion! Either way, I don't think that we'll stay up this season, there's just not enough about the team to do it. Which would mean starting next season in League One on minus 10 points. Well I say so be it! Its the rules, its morally right and as much as it pains me to say, its the way it should be.

 

I agree with a lot said in this article -

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/samgreen/blog/2009/04/07/football_league_must_deduct_10_points_from_southampton

 

But its also my opinion that Saints will come back, maybe not straight away, but in time with the right backers this great club will rise back up from the depths of League 1 and eventually re-claim its place in the Premiership, we just have to put up with a little more pain first...

 

You got your wish. Congratulations. See http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/ChampionshipNewsDetail/0,,10794~1636735,00.html.

[Saintmike666]

You got your wish. Congratulations. See http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/ChampionshipNewsDetail/0,,10794~1636735,00.html.

 

It was hardly 'My Wish'. Why don't you divert your anger somewhere else! Bloody moron!

 

Its totally devastating. I'm numb and distraught. But the club deserved it, not us fans, we don't deserve any of this but the club did. End of. Now if you'll excuse me I think I'm gonna go and drown my sorrows...

[ponto1963]

I think the really annoying thing about this is that Lowe didn't put us into admin sooner. rather have the 10 points deduct this season rather than next, we're going down anyway !!!

[Whitey Grandad]

But if a buyer for the Club can be found in the immediate future then why should the club be punished just for the administration of the landlord? From what little I have read, it would seem that the League have taken this decision because they feel miffed that Grant Thornton say that they haven't been given access to the figures. This smacks to me of politics. It would not surprise me if Rupert had put a few backs up during his time at Soho Square.