benjii Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 p.s I don't think Crouch meant to suggest that the corporate structure was put in place to avoid a penalty in these situations. I just don't think he expressed himself very well. The reasons for this belief are: 1) The corporate structure predates the league's insolvency rules 2) The structure was put in place becasue the original stadium finance was provided on a limited recourse basis 3) We needed to back into a listed company If Mawhinney thinks Crouch's comments are in any way useful evidence he is an idiot because: 1) Crouch had nothing to do with the establishment of the corporate structure so how would he knw anyway; and 2) the reasons above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 league regulations:12.3.1 With effect from the 10th May 2004, if any Club shall: - a have a manager, receiver or administrative receiver appointed in respect of that Club or any part of its undertaking or assets; b have an administration order made in respect of that Club; c have a winding-up order made in respect of that Club; d pass a resolution for the winding-up of that Club; e enter into any arrangement with its creditors or some part of them in respect of the payment of its debts or part of them as a company voluntary arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986 or Scheme of Arrangement under the Companies Act 1985; or f have any proceeding or step taken or any court order in any jurisdiction made which has a substantially similar effect to any of the foregoing; that Club shall be deducted 10 points. http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 But IMHO although technically/legally they are seperate companies and it is the PLC that is in administration and not the Club, I don't think the "law" applies as clearly as people think here, as ultimately the League is a "member's arrangement" and they can do pretty much as they see fit (within reasons of course). Well, indeed. I agree and ultimately that is what they have done. If they felt the need to spunk a load of money on forensic accounting that's their choice but by "legalising" the process they actually make our case stronger IMO. If they had just said, "this is manifestly unfair and it is obvious to the sense of justice of all proper people that a penalty needs to be applied as the holding company only exists because of the football club" they would be in a stronger position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 p.s I don't think Crouch meant to suggest that the corporate structure was put in place to avoid a penalty in these situations. I just don't think he expressed himself very well. The reasons for this belief are: 1) The corporate structure predates the league's insolvency rules 2) The structure was put in place becasue the original stadium finance was provided on a limited recourse basis 3) We needed to back into a listed company If Mawhinney thinks Crouch's comments are in any way useful evidence he is an idiot because: 1) Crouch had nothing to do with the establishment of the corporate structure so how would he knw anyway; and 2) the reasons above. I have to agree entirely. Crouch's little piece was unecessary and I'm not sure any loose cannons should be talking about these matters (leave it solely to the Administrator), but as you say I think what he said didn't come out the right way (not least for the reasons you have highlighted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 (edited) On a further point - there is now no incentive for the football club to stay out of admin if there is a buyer on the horizon (unless they really do want to appeal). Edited 23 April, 2009 by benjii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 What I want to know is where this 'competitive advantage' went, because I certainly didn't see any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I have to agree entirely. Crouch's little piece was unecessary and I'm not sure any loose cannons should be talking about these matters (leave it solely to the Administrator), but as you say I think what he said didn't come out the right way (not least for the reasons you have highlighted). I'm tempted to email 5 Live and ask them not to call him again! I respect what he's done for Saints and his commitment but a mouthpiece, he aint! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 The following article certainly explain the smug grin on Mawhinneys face... Lowe and his cronies were a political thorn in his side in the mid 90's. I'm sure he has taken great delight in ensuring mud sticks to Lowe over the current state of Saints. Sir James Goldsmith and Lowe helped to divide the Tory party and make them unelectable for a decade. Mawhinney rules out referendum Wednesday, 15 May 1996 Brian Mawhinney, Tory party chairman, yesterday moved to pre-empt any electoral threat from Sir James Goldsmith by seeking to reassure Euro- sceptic voters that the Conservatives were now "the referendum party." He went out of his way to promote Europe as a potential vote-winner for the Tories on the grounds that "a vote for any other party - whether it is serious about power or merely seeking protest votes - will put that European future at risk." As Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor, made a strongly pro-European speech to the German-British Chamber of Commerce Dr Mawhinney was insisting that "only a vote for the conservative Party will guarantee the defence of the nation state." Dr Mawhinney was unequivocal in warning - in the wake of talks between John Redwood, the former Welsh Secretary and Sir James - that there was no question of a referendum on the wider issue of the UK's EU membership, adding: "I should make clear that there is no question of negotiating this position with any other party." Mr Clarke went out of his way to stress that the EU was "to our national interests, both commercial and political." Mr Clarke's passionate defence of the political as well as merely economic importance of membership will be seen as a rebuke to those Euro-sceptics-including Mr Redwood-who have in effect argued that Britian signed up only for the single market." Mr Clarke declared: "I simply do not believe that you can separate economics from politics. The economic and trading interests of a nation are at the heart of politics; politicial decisions affect a nation's economic and trading environment." The Chancellor added: "We must have the self confidence and the determination to play our proper part in shaping Europe. In 10 or 20 years' time I want to see the UK at the heart of an outward-looking, free-trading, felxible and democratic union of nation states." The Governor of the Bank of England threw his weight behind the Chancellor, saying that British business and a large majority of the British people were ''enthusiastically committed'' to the Single Market. But he cautioned Britain's European partners against pushing too hard or too fast towards the single currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Lets take this on the chin, and move on with some dignity before the whole football league clubs hate us anymore. We used to be a club that were well run and a nice family club. Lets just make sure we have club to play in league 1 next season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreog Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Take the pain and move on......... if Crouch on BBC Five Live this evening if the benchmark of the belief that we are in the right, then God help us.........totally unconvincing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 (edited) league regulations:12.3.1 With effect from the 10th May 2004, if any Club shall: - a have a manager, receiver or administrative receiver appointed in respect of that Club or any part of its undertaking or assets; b have an administration order made in respect of that Club; c have a winding-up order made in respect of that Club; d pass a resolution for the winding-up of that Club; e enter into any arrangement with its creditors or some part of them in respect of the payment of its debts or part of them as a company voluntary arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986 or Scheme of Arrangement under the Companies Act 1985; or f have any proceeding or step taken or any court order in any jurisdiction made which has a substantially similar effect to any of the foregoing; that Club shall be deducted 10 points. I would say the legal advice the League got was that point f covers our situation. Nah, from the statement on their website they are relying on (a) which is why they are stuffed. (f) is to cover insolvency proceedings overseas (it's standard -ish wording you see in banking agreements, etc). Sorry, just seen that Benji's already answered this. Edited 23 April, 2009 by Rational Rich Didn't read the later posts before posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 (edited) Well, indeed. I agree and ultimately that is what they have done. If they felt the need to spunk a load of money on forensic accounting that's their choice but by "legalising" the process they actually make our case stronger IMO. If they had just said, "this is manifestly unfair and it is obvious to the sense of justice of all proper people that a penalty needs to be applied as the holding company only exists because of the football club" they would be in a stronger position. But would you not say that the reason for the forensic accounting was to ensure they were correct in saying "the holding company only exists because of the football club"????? And I have seen some people say "if we had kept the radio and insurance arm we might have been alright", well I just don't think that argument holds any water either. The Insurance company took in £150K and delivered minimal profit, whilst the radio station brought in £250k and lost £200k. So the two of them contirbuted nil profit and represented something like 3% of income. By the same token the 2006 accounts show that catering and events made a £1m contribution and the League have ruled that irrelevant. It's the Football Club that has incurred the costs/debt and brought in the vast majority of the income and it is the Football Club where all the problems have stemmed from. Edited 23 April, 2009 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Point f effectively apes standard boilerplate clauses in commercial / financial agreements, the point of which is to act as a sweeper in the case of some other procedure analagous to an English insolvency event taking place - hence the reference to "any jurisdiction". It also anticipates a change in English law ie. "Administration" as it is now, changes into something slightly different but similar etc. It would not be designed to move the goalposts of the preceeding clauses but merely to capture events that are not strictly defined therein. If they are relying on point f to catch us, they are changing the goalposts as there is no other jurisdiction involved and there is no analogous procedure. Basically, they fecked up the drafting or didn't anticipate this scenario. Or didn't care because they are such a clandestine troupe of old-ties that it makes bugger all difference to their sad little boys club in any case. Nah, from the statement on their website they are relying on (a) which is why they are stuffed. (f) is to cover insolvency proceedings overseas (it's standard -ish wording you see in banking agreements, etc) Thief!!;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Thief!!;-) Yeah, sorry, shouldn't be so trigger happy with the post button. When can we start talking about football again? It's nearly Friday already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 But would you not say that the reason for the forensic accounting was to ensure they were correct in saying "the holding company only exists because of the football club"????? And I have seen some people say "if we had kept the radio and insurance arm we might have been alright", well I just don't think that argument holds any water either. The Insurance company took in £150K and delivered minimal profit, whilst the radio station brought in £250k and lost £200k. So the two of them contirbuted nil profit and represented something like 3% of income. By the same token the 2006 accounts show that catering and events made a £1m contribution and the League have rules that irrelevant. It's the Football Club that has incurred the costs/debt and brought in the vast majority of the income and it is the Football Club where all the problems have stemmed from. I agree about the radio and insurance companies. Pretty irrelevant really. Especially as it was Saints radio and Saints branded insurance! I just can't see the point in this sham investigation. It would have taken them about 5 minutes of looking at the published accounts to realise what we all know! Or look at the website! By the sounds of what Fry has said, they were exceeding their brief at the end. Sounds like they finished what they were purported to be doing and then started digging around looking for "irregularities" etc... The fact is, the rules don't appear to allow for this BUT because of the nature of the organisation and the fact that without membership of it, clubs are buggered, they will probably get away with it. Would be funny if someone dragged them through the Lords and European courts one day but frankly, that would cost too much for a cash-strapped company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Yeah, sorry, shouldn't be so trigger happy with the post button. When can we start talking about football again? It's nearly Friday already. Next season? The one after?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjinksie Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 When Derbey went in to admin in Oct 2003 the rules on points deductions didn't apply. Although approved in Sept 2003, they didn't come into effect until the following season (August 2004). I blame Leicester, it's because of them going into administration in 2002 that means all other clubs take a 10 point hit. They went into administration cleared their debt, allowing micky adams to purchase more players then getting promoted. How ironic they will take our place in the championship.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SB Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Lost for words.. Mawhinneys a ****.. Lowes a ****.. LetsGowildes a tool, weak, and a ****.. Everything that represented Southampton has be been ****d over, Memories will always be there, but thats it memories.. RIP Pour me another:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I agree about the radio and insurance companies. Pretty irrelevant really. Especially as it was Saints radio and Saints branded insurance! I just can't see the point in this sham investigation. It would have taken them about 5 minutes of looking at the published accounts to realise what we all know! Or look at the website! By the sounds of what Fry has said, they were exceeding their brief at the end. Sounds like they finished what they were purported to be doing and then started digging around looking for "irregularities" etc... The fact is, the rules don't appear to allow for this BUT because of the nature of the organisation and the fact that without membership of it, clubs are buggered, they will probably get away with it. Would be funny if someone dragged them through the Lords and European courts one day but frankly, that would cost too much for a cash-strapped company. That's the part I was always worried about when we thought we could get away with it, i.e. the league rule that basically says "it's our League and if you don't like it then feel free to join another one!!!". Just think they had to send the boys in for a few days just to show they weredoing things properly, but like you I was interested in just what exceeded their brief was all about. I can just see David Jones saying "I don't think you're allowed to count the petty cash tin, give it back". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSparky Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 This was expected, even if the timing was not. If the Football League Board were to have the "balls" to say no points penalty they would have done it when then the met earlier in the month. The reported withdrawal of co-operation from the club is a significant concern; if this did actually happen then it is totally unacceptable from those who are responsible for the withdraw. I wish the Administrator would just shut-up and get on with finding a tangible buyer for the club, his public rant following the decision appeared unprofessional and frankly does little help our real situation; most importantly whether we as a club have a tangible future regardless which division we are destined to play in next season and what points penalty we may or may not have. Lets get on with Saving Our Saints! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 There is worse news. Next year it's 4 down, currently to escape the drop we would need 56 points (-10) to even be in with a shout of survival. For those thinking we could bounce back in one season, if we managed 82 points (currently enough for an automatic spot) we would just about scrape into the play-offs! We are gonna get some serious **** from oppostion fans to boot. Brace yourselves people, we are gonna need every ounce of steel that we can muster. COYFR's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieDog Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I am totally gutted. We deserve to be relegated, but not this way. Everything about this stinks. If I was a Swansea or a preston Fan I would be pretty annoyed at the timing of the announcement. They would have been hoping for a Saints win against Burnley, as it would be their last hope of sneaking a playoff place. similarly with norwich, as they would want us to get a result against Forest (but not burnley...) so that they can catch them and get out of the bottom 3. This whole thing sucks and has ruined the last 2 rounds of the Championships season for several teams (and probably cost them money in gate receipts) What was the point in making the announcement today - and why were the club only informed of the decision 5 minutes before its release! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S4INT Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I am not sure why our relegation status should be linked to the points deduction. What has relegation got to do with administration? Surely they either deduct the points this season, or next, for us going into admin. Why is it reliant on our league final position? What if we were mid table for example? Why this "vendetta" to ensure that Saints are relegated whatever? I've been wondering this... seems a bit random unless there's a rule somewhere that I've not seen :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Crazy as it sounds I wouldn't bet against woote wanting to stay! surely he can't though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 What I want to know is where this 'competitive advantage' went, because I certainly didn't see any. Saints spent that £7m they didnt have a few seasons ago to get to the playoffs. Thats exactly what they are trying to stop, clubs spending money they dont have, having debt wiped out and having another go. Its unfair to other clubs playing by the rules. Also, it was pretty stupid to say the club was set up to avoid any penalties, that means there was forethought in trying to cheat the system. I think an appeal might even bring harsher punishment, especially if Saints were trying to cover something else up and not cooperating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinhk Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I really can't understand the timing of this announcement surely they should wait until the end of the regular season - the competitors of Burnley and Forest will not be best pleased. What possible reason is there to announce it now or are they really just a bunch of incompetent nitwits? Unbelievable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I think that you have answered your own question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Take it on the chin I guess - we were 1/14 to go down anyway and realistically we were unlikely to come straight back up anyway. Even our turd of a side should be able to avoid relegation to League 2 - even with a 10 point deduction. Now a 25 point deduction would be something to worry about...... Focus is now on survival as a club and starting again with a decent rental agreement in place for playing at SMS with the new stadium owner - whoever that turns out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinhk Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Maybe the FL had 'no choice' (Mahwinney's words) but to apply the penalty as they must be seen to be trying to uphold the integrity of the competition and also to placate those clubs that would have otherwise appealed. The FL would probably have expected us to appeal their decision. I don't know who would preside over that but I guess it is out of the hands of the FL so at least they can then say they have done their bit. If our appeal was successful, and I believe we have a good case, we would start in League 1 on zero points (a bottom three finish this year is a given for me), surely we would be happy with that and having gone through a legal appeal process it's unlikely that any other club would kick up much more of a fuss. Everybody's happy(ish). Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefuriousb Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Yes - not the result we wanted but I tend to agree. Lowe tried to be too clever by half. Unfortunately Leon just shot us in the foot by suggesting that SLH was only set up to avoid us getting a points penalty (which I'm sure isn't true): http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8014811.stm I have not actually heard Leon's exact words but it seems that Mawhinney is just securing his own position I always thought that the football club itself could not be a Plc. a holding company had to be established - which would be the listed company, and the club would be a limited company within the Plc structure? These were FA (or PL rules)? also, in the heady days of the Prem were we really covering our arse against administration? The past few years when the club has continued to operate beyond its means would suggest we did not plan at all well for that eventuality (???). At any time since 1996 the rules of the league(s) could have been changed to prevent our Plc status from being used in this manner. It would again therefore not be prudent to think it would remain our "get out of jail free card". \not that the Lowe admin could have been targeting that, given they did not adopt the Leeds "shoot for the starts" policy to spending money. Leon was also not an executive director at the time that SLH was formed. How exactly would he know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefuriousb Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 If our appeal was successful, and I believe we have a good case, we would start in League 1 on zero points (a bottom three finish this year is a given for me), surely we would be happy with that and having gone through a legal appeal process it's unlikely that any other club would kick up much more of a fuss. Everybody's happy(ish). Case closed. This, I feel, is what may be the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightspark Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I too was really resigned to relegation, but for me its a big thing if we start next season with -10. I think it almost makes the season half as enjoyable as what it could be. Saints need a season to bring the fans back together and more importantly repairing the relationship between the board and the fans, while not enduring a season of constant disappointment and relegation difficulty. I feel it would be a disaster if we were to drop any further than League 1. Hopefully next season we'll be on zero from the start in L1. But I do fear that -25. The league can be a real pain in the anal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Also, it was pretty stupid to say the club was set up to avoid any penalties, that means there was forethought in trying to cheat the system. I have not actually heard Leon's exact words but it seems that Mawhinney is just securing his own position............. ................Leon was also not an executive director at the time that SLH was formed. How exactly would he know? What Crouch said certainly wasn't clever, but as Benjii explains below, I don't think what he said cam eout well for the following well thought out reasons: p.s I don't think Crouch meant to suggest that the corporate structure was put in place to avoid a penalty in these situations. I just don't think he expressed himself very well. The reasons for this belief are: 1) The corporate structure predates the league's insolvency rules 2) The structure was put in place becasue the original stadium finance was provided on a limited recourse basis 3) We needed to back into a listed company If Mawhinney thinks Crouch's comments are in any way useful evidence he is an idiot because: 1) Crouch had nothing to do with the establishment of the corporate structure so how would he knw anyway; and 2) the reasons above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghq Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I have to agree entirely. Crouch's little piece was unecessary and I'm not sure any loose cannons should be talking about these matters (leave it solely to the Administrator), but as you say I think what he said didn't come out the right way (not least for the reasons you have highlighted). This might just give a further insight as to why Wilde sided with Lowe rather than Crouch. It's not the first stuff up he's uttered since investing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I too was really resigned to relegation, but for me its a big thing if we start next season with -10. Yep. This season has been a busted flush since Xmas. All I wanted to do was start next season in L1 on an even playing field. Thanks Rupert you pr**k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 This might just give a further insight as to why Wilde sided with Lowe rather than Crouch. It's not the first stuff up he's uttered since investing. With all due respect, I would rather have a loose cannon spouting off the odd inaccuracy and making honest mistakes, than someone who comes in and rips up what could be a potentially decent management set up and replaces it with a Revolutionary Coaching Set Up!!!! Crouch made mistakes, for sure and he will make some more, but I think I would have needed more than what your suggesting to side with Lowe given his track record in latter years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Yep. This season has been a busted flush since Xmas. All I wanted to do was start next season in L1 on an even playing field. Thanks Rupert you pr**k. why start at xmas you could safely go back to last may, i thought the decision re pearson was mad, but sending out payments knowing the overdraft limit would be broken seems like a delibrate act to provoke barclays and give the excuse for administration. Good businessman ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Saints spent that £7m they didnt have a few seasons ago to get to the playoffs. Thats exactly what they are trying to stop, clubs spending money they dont have, having debt wiped out and having another go. Its unfair to other clubs playing by the rules. Also, it was pretty stupid to say the club was set up to avoid any penalties, that means there was forethought in trying to cheat the system. I think an appeal might even bring harsher punishment, especially if Saints were trying to cover something else up and not cooperating. The £7m was in effect mainly funded by the Walcott transfer to Arsenal and has in any case been more than compensated for by subsequent player sales . The heart of the matter (to cut a long story short) was that many of the players that £7m brought demanded long term and very expensive contracts which we couldn't get out of when we narrowly failed to gain promotion 2 seasons ago . Rather than being a unique case of SFC mismanagement this is a systematic problem in the Football League of clubs being driven by unconfined competitive market forces into overspending on players contracts . The same Football League that so readily comes down like a ton of bricks on struggling clubs might well more profitably spend its time tackling the root causes of the problem instead . I'll throw a few ideas into the ring : 1- FL clubs should be able to make players redundant if necessary just like any other workers in any other business . Alternatively introduce 'rolling contracts' for players as well as managers . 2- Some sort of wage cap to be introduced , probably based on a percentage of club income . 3- An end to the bonus culture in the game (Jason Euell's absurd £300k per season being a prime example) . 4- Replace the current Administration points deduction regulations with an mandatory 'FL Annual Audit' - the power to prevent clubs from overspending before they become bankrupt is surely better than punishing them after the event . 5- The directors of failed clubs to be banned from the game for at least 10 years - punish those responsible for mismanagement rather than the fans who aren't . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintredwine Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Seeming we went into Administration in this season why should it be carried over to the next season if we dont manage to stay up. OK dont like the idea of points being deducted but deduct them now, at least we have a clean sheet for the start of next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 1- FL clubs should be able to make players redundant if necessary just like any other workers in any other business . Alternatively introduce 'rolling contracts' for players as well as managers . Agree wholeheartedly 2- Some sort of wage cap to be introduced , probably based on a percentage of club income . This should of happened 10 years ago...root cause of all the problems most clubs have. 3- An end to the bonus culture in the game (Jason Euell's absurd £300k per season being a prime example) . If performance linked......none of our so called 'players' would get a penny. 4- Replace the current Administration points deduction regulations with an mandatory 'FL Annual Audit' - the power to prevent clubs from overspending before they become bankrupt is surely better than punishing them after the event . Agreed 5- The directors of failed clubs to be banned from the game for at least 10 years - punish those responsible for mismanagement rather than the fans who aren't . Totally on the money here. Great points, this should be made a thread in it's own right, and a campaign started via Talksport/Sky Sport/BBC 5 Live etc, to force the League into a major rethink. If they continue to drive clubs out of existence, then if and when the Premiership evolves again, taking an even bigger slice of the evaporating money pot, the league won't have a pot to p*ss in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Great points, this should be made a thread in it's own right, and a campaign started via Talksport/Sky Sport/BBC 5 Live etc, to force the League into a major rethink. If they continue to drive clubs out of existence, then if and when the Premiership evolves again, taking an even bigger slice of the evaporating money pot, the league won't have a pot to p*ss in. I love your ideas and think they would make good campaigning points. HOWEVER A wage cap will not work unless it can be applied to the Premiership as well. It will just increase the size of the chasm that currently exists between the Premiership and the Championship if it is not applied to them as well. Can you see the Premiership agreeing to a wage cap???? Thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Under Weststand Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Whilst this is what I expected & in someway morally justified the worse case scenario is being played out now we start next year in LGE-1 -10 points. A sad end to a disastrous season leaving more questions than answers forth-coming. Why did Barclays pull the plug when they did knowing the consequences? Why did we not force the issue a week earlier IF we new we were that close to the edge? And I'm glad were contesting it with the league as it does seem that they are just hitting us to placate the other clubs hit with similar penalties. NOT on the laws they have in place. Lets just hope we have a club next year & hit the ground running, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Lets see them deduct 10 points from West Ham also then whose holding company entered administration the other day!!!! The difference seems to be that West ham's holding company is/was more than a holding company for a football club. Maybe we should have kept the radio station and the insurance business after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 You get very touchy when people don't simply accept everything you say as gospel don't you. I've not the one spouting off on here demanding that everybody agree with me. What I have said is that I don't think that the argument is as clear cut as your posts imply it to be. I get touchy when our club is close to going out of existence, TBH. Getting back to the points you and "Rational Rich" made together, it now transpires that not only were you wrong about the strength of the club's case against the 10 point deduction, which I said was inevitable, but today's Echo is reporting that the only reason the club is going to appeal the deduction is that it will give any new owner the option of proceeding with it. I don't expect you to admit I was right about the points deduction and the fact that the Administrator was never going fund a legal action, nor does that fact concern me. I'm still laughing about your suggestion that Barclays may fund it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Post-it note Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Will the £5 forum charge be reduced or scrapped now that we are a league 1 club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I get touchy when our club is close to going out of existence, TBH. Getting back to the points you and "Rational Rich" made together, it now transpires that not only were you wrong about the strength of the club's case against the 10 point deduction, which I said was inevitable, but today's Echo is reporting that the only reason the club is going to appeal the deduction is that it will give any new owner the option of proceeding with it. I don't expect you to admit I was right about the points deduction and the fact that the Administrator was never going fund a legal action, nor does that fact concern me. I'm still laughing about your suggestion that Barclays may fund it... Time will tell. IMHO, the case is strong, it just comes down to whether it is worthwhile (financially and commercially) to pursue it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 The £7m was in effect mainly funded by the Walcott transfer to Arsenal and has in any case been more than compensated for by subsequent player sales . The heart of the matter (to cut a long story short) was that many of the players that £7m brought demanded long term and very expensive contracts which we couldn't get out of when we narrowly failed to gain promotion 2 seasons ago . Rather than being a unique case of SFC mismanagement this is a systematic problem in the Football League of clubs being driven by unconfined competitive market forces into overspending on players contracts . The same Football League that so readily comes down like a ton of bricks on struggling clubs might well more profitably spend its time tackling the root causes of the problem instead . I'll throw a few ideas into the ring : 1- FL clubs should be able to make players redundant if necessary just like any other workers in any other business . Alternatively introduce 'rolling contracts' for players as well as managers . 2- Some sort of wage cap to be introduced , probably based on a percentage of club income . 3- An end to the bonus culture in the game (Jason Euell's absurd £300k per season being a prime example) . 4- Replace the current Administration points deduction regulations with an mandatory 'FL Annual Audit' - the power to prevent clubs from overspending before they become bankrupt is surely better than punishing them after the event . 5- The directors of failed clubs to be banned from the game for at least 10 years - punish those responsible for mismanagement rather than the fans who aren't . Great ideas which I'd love to see but it would never happen as there are simple rebuttals Clubs choose to sign players on long contracts The FL is composed of Directors of Football clubs - like Turkeys are going to vote for Christmas - make a mistake and you are banned for 10 years - that'll work - not.. Too many entrenched hangers on and political animals in football, not enough sense unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I get touchy when our club is close to going out of existence, TBH. Getting back to the points you and "Rational Rich" made together, it now transpires that not only were you wrong about the strength of the club's case against the 10 point deduction, which I said was inevitable, but today's Echo is reporting that the only reason the club is going to appeal the deduction is that it will give any new owner the option of proceeding with it. I don't expect you to admit I was right about the points deduction and the fact that the Administrator was never going fund a legal action, nor does that fact concern me. I'm still laughing about your suggestion that Barclays may fund it... Sigh... I don't think you'll find a post from me stating the legal position with regard to the 10 points one way or the other. You'll find plenty discussing possibilities though. You are so keen for an argument that as soon as you see a post that doesn’t hold your opinion in awe you start foaming at the mouth. "I'm still laughing about your suggestion that Barclays may fund it..." As I've said on all the my posts above Barclays MAY could well fund it if the arguments are sufficient and the cost/benefit adds up. I think I even bolded the MAY in the previous posts. Barclays are funding both legal action and short term trading losses on a number of cases with which I am currently dealing for exactly the reasons outlined above. Informed posters will make their own judgements. Others with less experience of these situations rely on others for information to make theirs. You rant and rave happily informing everybody what will definitely happen, black and white, because you are clearly all seeing and all knowing. The situation isn't like that and you know it. You clearly consider yourself to have a wealth of knowledge in the insolvency arena. Given that you don't work in the industry as an accountant or solicitor where did you gain this all encompassing experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Looking at the League Rules quote dabove, they distinctly refer to "the Club." The Club is a separate legal entity from Leisure Holdings and it is this wording that will be argued by the QC's I am sure. We can only hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 'But the fans know as well as the rest of us that this has not been a shining example of football management. ' Lord Mawhinney on Rupert Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now