Guided Missile Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 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? Two minor points, if I may...I don't consider accounting or law to be "industries" and I think that philosophy is why our economy, is in the state it is and to a greater degree, why Saints are in the position they are. The sooner people realise that both "professions" are seen for what they are, ie non-productive and overpaid occupations, that drain the life out of many businesses that would be better served, spending the money on succeeding in their corporate mission, the better. I don't consider I have a wealth of knowledge in the insolvency "arena". I was a major shareholder in a company that went into administration and watched, as any the surplus cash was drained out into PWC's account. I am also watching as Begbie Traynor do the same to SLH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone 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. I think Mawhinney's view includes all those that have run the club in recent times Including the likes of Hone and Crouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I think Mawhinney's view includes all those that have run the club in recent times Including the likes of Hone and Crouch. I think that's true. 12 years of Lowe, 2 of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I think that's true. 12 years of Lowe, 2 of the others. Yes, and exactly how many of those years have been bad under Lowe? Both the relegation seasons and 05-06. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkshire Saint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Yes, and exactly how many of those years have been bad under Lowe? Both the relegation seasons and 05-06. That's all. You're wasting your time a bit there to be honest, mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Yes, and exactly how many of those years have been bad under Lowe? Both the relegation seasons and 05-06. That's all. No I think the league placing gradually reduces throughout that period. So all of the years under Lowe. It is a gradual decline Crab Lungs under Lowe, with a really rapid one added this season that takes us to our lowest position in 49 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 No I think the league placing gradually reduces throughout that period. So all of the years under Lowe. It is a gradual decline Crab Lungs under Lowe, with a really rapid one added this season that takes us to our lowest position in 49 years. That's what it has felt like, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagon 84 Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Not sure if its been covered or not but has anyone got any idea on next season ticket pricing, be nice to price it sensibly & get the ground full. Maybe under 16 years a big reduction after all these are the future of the club... It aint gonna be easy for a kid going to school following a league 1 club but if we can get them in the ground just maybe they will get hooked like the rest of us sorry lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Two minor points, if I may...I don't consider accounting or law to be "industries" and I think that philosophy is why our economy, is in the state it is and to a greater degree, why Saints are in the position they are. The sooner people realise that both "professions" are seen for what they are, ie non-productive and overpaid occupations, that drain the life out of many businesses that would be better served, spending the money on succeeding in their corporate mission, the better. I don't consider I have a wealth of knowledge in the insolvency "arena". I was a major shareholder in a company that went into administration and watched, as any the surplus cash was drained out into PWC's account. I am also watching as Begbie Traynor do the same to SLH. But surely, any moneys going into SFC will not be swallowed up by the administrators, as they are separate entity's........or so they are telling the football league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZuess1979 the 2nd Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Wasn`t the holding company registered in 1996 Wasn`t this also BEFORE derby`s holding company went into admin and got away with it If so then i am struggling to understand why people are accusing saints of setting the company up just to access a loop hole one day in the future ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 But surely, any moneys going into SFC will not be swallowed up by the administrators, as they are separate entity's........or so they are telling the football league. It works like this. Any money that any deluded fans donate to the club from now, will diminish the loss that the club makes between due diligence and any deal for the club closing. This means that the potential buyer will pay more for the club than if the money had not been donated and thus more money will be available to pay the creditors. More money recovered will probably mean more money for the administrators, but definitely more money for Barclays... Still, get the buckets out, lads, I'm sure you'll feel great donating to the bank that pulled the plug... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Still, get the buckets out, lads, I'm sure you'll feel great donating to the bank that pulled the plug... Do you need a hand down from that pedestal? Well done for being so much better informed than everybody else, but you can't blame people for wanting to do what they can to help the club they love, regardless of the realities of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner 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. 10 guineas from here on, got to buy some hi-tech buckets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childintime Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 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.... The usual ignorant blame Leicester comment strikes again, the quoted poster should get his facts right. We didn't voluntarily go into administration, we were sued by Eric Hall (agent of Dennis Wise) which forced us into admin. The FL then placed a transfer embargo on the club banning us from bringing any players in during our promotion season, as well as putting our entire squad up for sale. No offers came in for any of our players. If you want to blame anyone, blame the likes of Neil Warnock and Milan Mandaric who spent most of the season bleating on in the press about the unfairness of it all, and the majority of the 72 league clubs who voted in favour of points penalties (only Leicester and Bradford voted against). Like turkeys voting for Christmas really. I've always liked Southampton, and am sorry to see the news, hence why I am sat here reading your forum. I wouldn't wish this on anyone and the thought of playing in League 1 hurts enough aside from the financial difficulties and mismanagement of your club. So I hope I speak for most fans in wishing you good luck and I hope you'll be back again in no time and under new ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Do you need a hand down from that pedestal? Well done for being so much better informed than everybody else, but you can't blame people for wanting to do what they can to help the club they love, regardless of the realities of the situation. Sorry if the post came over like that, Barry, but it p!$$e$ me off when the fans are asked to dig deep for a pointless cause, in the middle of a recession. The people that were asked to donate, last time, were the one's who had already bought a ticket for the game, inside the stadium. The fans that should donate, if anyone, were the ones that weren't there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I love your ideas and think they would make good campaigning points. HOWEVER A wage cap will not work unless it can be applied to the Premiership as well. It will just increase the size of the chasm that currently exists between the Premiership and the Championship if it is not applied to them as well. Can you see the Premiership agreeing to a wage cap???? Thought not. It is not only our country feeling the pinch moneywise. UEFA have already spoken about this idea as have FIFA. I think it is going to happen sooner rather than later and when it does the clubs spending the most will be the ones hopefully who come off worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Sorry if the post came over like that, Barry, but it p!$$e$ me off when the fans are asked to dig deep for a pointless cause, in the middle of a recession. The people that were asked to donate, last time, were the one's who had already bought a ticket for the game, inside the stadium. The fans that should donate, if anyone, were the ones that weren't there... Fair enough, just came across as you belittling fans who, misguided or not, at the end of the day are just trying to help their club. If what you're saying about the donations is true then your anger would definitely be better aimed at those doing the on-pitch/media begging rather than the fans who donate in the hope it will help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Faz Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 It works like this. Any money that any deluded fans donate to the club from now, will diminish the loss that the club makes between due diligence and any deal for the club closing. This means that the potential buyer will pay more for the club than if the money had not been donated and thus more money will be available to pay the creditors. More money recovered will probably mean more money for the administrators, but definitely more money for Barclays... Still, get the buckets out, lads, I'm sure you'll feel great donating to the bank that pulled the plug... So lets be clear - in your view there is no risk , however small ,of the club going under before a deal is done ? we are simply wasting our money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 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. I posted this last night which IMHO shows that keeping these businesses would not have made any impact (not least because we already bring in over £1million from events and catering, which wasn't enough to dissaude the League from coming ot their conclusion). 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 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. The Premier League dont have rules around Admin and points deduction, so it makes no difference either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 (edited) It is not only our country feeling the pinch moneywise. UEFA have already spoken about this idea as have FIFA. I think it is going to happen sooner rather than later and when it does the clubs spending the most will be the ones hopefully who come off worse. Heaven forbid the the football league ever adopt the French system though. All clubs have to subject their accounts to the DNCG (Direction Nationale de Controle et Gestion) and if you're bad boys you get relegated, or not promoted. If you're not really bad but not so good either they oversee recruitment or stop it altogether until you get your act together. That's why French football is only good on a national level and the clubs, even the best are zero on a European level.You just can't owe money, the DNCG won't have it unless some rich entity underwrites a guarantee for the debt.For many year Monaco were outside the scope of the DNCG, they got to the European cup final on 6000 home gates, when their finances were scrutinised by the DNCG they escaped relegation on the last day of the season and had their recruitment restricted for the following year.Stasbourg didn't want to sell Schneiderlin (apparently) but the DNCG told them to get 6 million euros in sharpish or be retrograded to the National League (D3) immediately after being relegated from the first division.They sold all their decent players but look like going straight back up anyway. Imagine if the Football league could make you sell players to balance your budget. Edited 24 April, 2009 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Heaven forbid the the football league ever adopt the French system though. All clubs have to subject their accounts to the DNCG (Direction Nationale de Controle et Gestion) and if you're bad boys you get relegated, or not promoted. If you're not really bad but not so good either they oversee recruitment or stop it altogether until you get your act together. That's why French football is only good on a national level and the clubs, even the best are zero on a European level.You just can't owe money, the DNCG won't have it unless some rich entity underwrites a guarantee for the debt.For many year Monaco were outside the scope of the DNCG, they got to the European cup final on 6000 home gates, when their finances were scrutinised by the DNCG they escaped relegation on the last day of the season and had their recruitment restricted for the following year.Stasbourg didn't want to sell Schneiderlin (apparently) but the DNCG told them to get 6 million euros in sharpish or be retrograded to the National League (D3) immediately after being relegated from the first division.They sold all their decent players but look like going straight back up anyway. Imagine if the Football league could make you sell players to balance your budget. But surely if it was the same for everybody across Europe a lot of those issues would be non existant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 But surely if it was the same for everybody across Europe a lot of those issues would be non existant? someone would always find new loopholes to get round the system. If the same system was strictly applied European football would become more interesting as you wouldn't have 3 clubs who have the biggest debt in the semis of the Champions League every year .It would perhaps become as before with finals of Steua Bucharest against Schalke 04 for instance (don't know if that ever happened). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I posted this last night which IMHO shows that keeping these businesses would not have made any impact (not least because we already bring in over £1million from events and catering, which wasn't enough to dissaude the League from coming ot their conclusion). 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. Im not sure it matters so much to how much money is made by other area's. Maybe just having 3 or 4 branches out of SLH would be enough to prove that the club and the holding company were seperate entitys? Right now the holding clubs only branches are all closly associated with the football club and there for come accross as one in the same thing. With 3 or 4 the holding company could have gone into admin because any one of its branches was draining all the finances and be forced to sell off its assets to make changes. Football club gets sold to someone who can support it finances and the holding company would have survived. FL IMO might not have had a leg to stand on and couldnt have deducted points. Its a long shot and irrelivant really, I doubt anyone thought about these possible outcomes when the brainchild of the insurance company and radio station were dreamt up so the same can be said when the decission was made to bin them. I bet no-one actually thought they would be sitting down a year down the line wondering if things may have been different should we still have those branches though. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Im not sure it matters so much to how much money is made by other area's. Maybe just having 3 or 4 branches out of SLH would be enough to prove that the club and the holding company were seperate entitys? Right now the holding clubs only branches are all closly associated with the football club and there for come accross as one in the same thing. With 3 or 4 the holding company could have gone into admin because any one of its branches was draining all the finances and be forced to sell off its assets to make changes. Football club gets sold to someone who can support it finances and the holding company would have survived. FL IMO might not have had a leg to stand on and couldnt have deducted points. Its a long shot and irrelivant really, I doubt anyone thought about these possible outcomes when the brainchild of the insurance company and radio station were dreamt up so the same can be said when the decission was made to bin them. I bet no-one actually thought they would be sitting down a year down the line wondering if things may have been different should we still have those branches though. lol It's all pssing in the wind as the true reason we are in Administration is due to the financial failings of the Football Club. Technically the PLC is in administration, but the PLC is in administration solely because of the Football Club's financial problems. There can be no doubt about that. We already have non footballing revenue that is apparently double what the Insurance Company and Radio Station used to bring in and the idea that just because we could/shuld have 3 or 4 branches off the main PLC would not alter the simple fact that it is the Football CLub that is bringing us down. "Substance Over Form" I'm afraid and with the League being a Member's Organisation we're nto talking about legal technicalities here, it's their game and if we want to play then we have to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 It's all pssing in the wind as the true reason we are in Administration is due to the financial failings of the Football Club. Technically the PLC is in administration, but the PLC is in administration solely because of the Football Club's financial problems. There can be no doubt about that. We already have non footballing revenue that is apparently double what the Insurance Company and Radio Station used to bring in and the idea that just because we could/shuld have 3 or 4 branches off the main PLC would not alter the simple fact that it is the Football CLub that is bringing us down. "Substance Over Form" I'm afraid and with the League being a Member's Organisation we're nto talking about legal technicalities here, it's their game and if we want to play then we have to accept it. not trying to argue the case as i agree with you. slightly intersting to wonder IF it would have made the slightest difference but no more than a passing thought. like you say the holding company are in the pooh because the football club cant service its debts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 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. Totally agree. I am no massive Crouch fan, but in my view he is certainly the lesser of the two (three?) evils. Crouch must take his share of the blame for our financial position, but Lowe and Wilde take 100% of the responsibility for the coaching team f*** up, which in turn, had we got it right (i.e. left Pearson in situ) might have eased our financial worries with higher gates etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintsfanwill101 Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 to be honest there is NOTHING we can do now. It has been proven that the fans had no voice under L***, however if we look on the bright side of things, hopefully the new owners will allow the fans a say in the running of OUR club, and two lets hope that next season saints home record will be inverted to more wins than losses. Anything can happen, and one thing you can guarentee is that at the end of the day, we have some of the best fans in the country, if not the world, so chin up lads and ladies and lets concentrate on gettin Southampton FC back where it belongs!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I think he has a bee in his bonnet about bankers/lawyers/accountants/anyone cleverer than him..... . Two minor points, if I may... I don't consider accounting or law to be "industries" and I think that philosophy is why our economy, is in the state it is and to a greater degree, why Saints are in the position they are. The sooner people realise that both "professions" are seen for what they are, ie non-productive and overpaid occupations, that drain the life out of many businesses that would be better served, spending the money on succeeding in their corporate mission, the better. I don't consider I have a wealth of knowledge in the insolvency "arena". I was a major shareholder in a company that went into administration and watched, as any the surplus cash was drained out into PWC's account. I am also watching as Begbie Traynor do the same to SLH. Looks like I was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 The usual ignorant blame Leicester comment strikes again, the quoted poster should get his facts right. We didn't voluntarily go into administration, we were sued by Eric Hall (agent of Dennis Wise) which forced us into admin. The FL then placed a transfer embargo on the club banning us from bringing any players in during our promotion season, as well as putting our entire squad up for sale. No offers came in for any of our players. If you want to blame anyone, blame the likes of Neil Warnock and Milan Mandaric who spent most of the season bleating on in the press about the unfairness of it all, and the majority of the 72 league clubs who voted in favour of points penalties (only Leicester and Bradford voted against). Like turkeys voting for Christmas really. I've always liked Southampton, and am sorry to see the news, hence why I am sat here reading your forum. I wouldn't wish this on anyone and the thought of playing in League 1 hurts enough aside from the financial difficulties and mismanagement of your club. So I hope I speak for most fans in wishing you good luck and I hope you'll be back again in no time and under new ownership. I've always disliked Leciester and found their support to be a bunch of moribund imbeciles. I wish Nigel Pearson success. I'm sure he will find it elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopkins 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. Thats what you wanted. All I wanted was for us to fight for a chance to stay up and in The Championship. Just because you wanted something doesn't mean its the right thing to do. Alright were down now, but i'm glad we attempted staying up and than give up in march and plan for next season when this one wasn't even over. However **** you are, giving up is just embarrasing. (Don't start saying **** like "The players gave up ages ago blah blah blah." Its boring and untrue.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Mr Hopkins. Which team have you been watching this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopkins Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Mr Hopkins. Which team have you been watching this season? I'm not denying were guff. We deserve to go down, but no player goes out having gave up. Each and every one of them wanted to win and stay up. To say the players gave up/didn't care etc is an easy excuse for fans to aim at players. To have given up in March by going into administration and accepting the points deduction would have been absurd and no doubt about it would have caused more horrendous amounts of hatred for Lowe. Much happier we gave it a go and left it as late as possible before doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 It's all pssing in the wind as the true reason we are in Administration is due to the financial failings of the Football Club. Technically the PLC is in administration, but the PLC is in administration solely because of the Football Club's financial problems. There can be no doubt about that. We already have non footballing revenue that is apparently double what the Insurance Company and Radio Station used to bring in and the idea that just because we could/shuld have 3 or 4 branches off the main PLC would not alter the simple fact that it is the Football CLub that is bringing us down. "Substance Over Form" I'm afraid and with the League being a Member's Organisation we're nto talking about legal technicalities here, it's their game and if we want to play then we have to accept it. Substance over form is one thing, the actual law of the land is another. If there is a technical legality issue that is entrenched in the law, then there would be recourse through the legal system. In some ways our predicament is the damned Bosman ruling on player contracts which was eventually fought out in the courts and imposed on a Member's Organisation. Now while we may still be dead and defunct, in theory IF (that's as big as I can make it) but IF the law says one thing and the FL try and say another then there could be a claim for damages. If it's a good debating point on here, imagine how the lawyers are rubbing their hands now Sheff Utd 20 mil compensations against West Ham is one thing but the FL being hit for a compensation claim for lost revenue and the chance to get back into the PL next season if we (hahaha) actually could have stayed up. Somewhere there will be a legal t crossed or an i dotted that COULD give Mahwinney sleepless nights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Yes, and exactly how many of those years have been bad under Lowe? Both the relegation seasons and 05-06. That's all. how many does he need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sainta claus Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 I'm Norwegian and just got the bad news. After I just finished crying my eyes out I just had to post. I've been following this forum for a long time and I must admit that all of the negative input from the fans never gave me hope of securing a place in CCL- still I can't believe that money, not football, is what matters when teams are relegated. This is no a disgrace to the English standars of sportsmanship. On the other hand, I have followed Saints since 1990 (since I was 12) and what really attracked me to the club was the honesty, the idea that talent is not bought but produced, the way the club used limited funds to produce great footballers and the fact that we from times to times thrashed the big (american/saudi/russian) clubs at The Dell. In recent years we have produced great footballers, we have a great reputation- and I for one, truly believe that Saints will be viewed as a club that exists for the love of the game, rather than a company. That's why we'll survive- although we might have to thrash Cheltenham instead of Man.Utd- I'll still follow the Saint. COYR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childintime Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 I've always disliked Leciester and found their support to be a bunch of moribund imbeciles. I wish Nigel Pearson success. I'm sure he will find it elsewhere. A bit of a sweeping statement that, thankfully I've found not all Southampton fans to be as ignorant as you. And most can spell Leicester correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintJackoInHurworth Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 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 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. Substance over form is one thing, the actual law of the land is another. If there is a technical legality issue that is entrenched in the law, then there would be recourse through the legal system. In some ways our predicament is the damned Bosman ruling on player contracts which was eventually fought out in the courts and imposed on a Member's Organisation. Now while we may still be dead and defunct, in theory IF (that's as big as I can make it) but IF the law says one thing and the FL try and say another then there could be a claim for damages. If it's a good debating point on here, imagine how the lawyers are rubbing their hands now Sheff Utd 20 mil compensations against West Ham is one thing but the FL being hit for a compensation claim for lost revenue and the chance to get back into the PL next season if we (hahaha) actually could have stayed up. Somewhere there will be a legal t crossed or an i dotted that COULD give Mahwinney sleepless nights Some good points made here guys. Before reading them I had just been on the Football Focus website posting some commenst in the hope that the issue might be raised on their programme. Here is what I wrote: "As a Saints fan, I am shocked by the ridiculous decision reached this week by the Football League investigation into Southampton Football Club. Whatever the links may be between the club and the PLC, that is not the issue and Lord Mawhinney's attempts to suggest it is are laughable. Like it or not, the rules clearly state that any FOOTBALL CLUB going into administration should be deducted 10 points. No mention is made of these 10 points applying if a holding company goes into administration as is the case here. While the rules may have been intended to penalise cases like this, the fact is that the wording of the Football League's own rules does not support this decision. I would venture to suggest that they are on perilous legal ground. It looks like this is going to be yet another example of footballing authorities living in ivory towers out of touch with the real world. I envisage that once again we will see an appeal against a footballing authority decision which will ultimately result in the football club in question receiving substantial compensation, further undermining the game of football. I call upon Lord Mawhinney and co. to reverse this decision forthwith or to resign before facing the inevitable humiliation that will result from a legal appeal. Furthermore, I call upon the Football League to sit down around the table and re-evaluate what is anyway a ridiculous ruling. To penalise football clubs that are in serious financial difficulties in a way that will further jeopardise these clubs cannot be a logical thing to do. A more sensible ruling would see football clubs penalised for clearly cheating the system - i.e. NOT for going into administration, but rather for using administration as a means to make unfair footballing advantage. Such an accusation cannot be levied at Darlington, Rotherham, Bournemouth, and Southampton - to name but a few clubs affected by this ridiculous rule. Why should the cheating of a few clubs be used to affect the financial livelihoods of clubs with genuine financial problems? I hope that you will be able to highlight this issue in your programme." Perhaps Chapel End Charlie's ideas should also be posted to the BBC/Sky/Talksport, etc. as Gingeletiss has suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 Well said Saintjack , you put it far more eloquently than I ever could . The case for reform at the FL is a overwhelming one I feel , although fan opinion doesn't seem to count much in the game as our 'betters' lord it over us from on high . The fundamental absurdity of this regulation increase the more you think about it . Say for instance instead of narrowly failing on penalties in the 06/07 season Play-off semi finals we had won the game and subsequently gained promotion back to the Premier League (this could so easily had happened) - in this scenario our £7m 'overspend' would be magically transformed in a 'wise investment' and far from being punished for it we would actually have been rewarded with years of lucrative PL TV money. The only difference between this scenario and what actually occurred is that Leon Bloody Best missed a penalty kick :mad: (excuse the hyperbole) - you could cogently argue that in effect the game won't punish you for overspending per se , it punishes you for not overspending enough . If this principle were to be carried over into the criminal law bank robbing would be perfectly legal as long as you made a clean getaway ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 I'm Norwegian and just got the bad news. After I just finished crying my eyes out I just had to post. I've been following this forum for a long time and I must admit that all of the negative input from the fans never gave me hope of securing a place in CCL- still I can't believe that money, not football, is what matters when teams are relegated. This is no a disgrace to the English standars of sportsmanship. On the other hand, I have followed Saints since 1990 (since I was 12) and what really attracked me to the club was the honesty, the idea that talent is not bought but produced, the way the club used limited funds to produce great footballers and the fact that we from times to times thrashed the big (american/saudi/russian) clubs at The Dell. In recent years we have produced great footballers, we have a great reputation- and I for one, truly believe that Saints will be viewed as a club that exists for the love of the game, rather than a company. That's why we'll survive- although we might have to thrash Cheltenham instead of Man.Utd- I'll still follow the Saint. COYR well done, nice sentiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carljack Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 well done, nice sentiments. saints till we die! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 MLT has his say http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4319188.Le_Tiss_blasts__clueless__League/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 MLT has his say http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4319188.Le_Tiss_blasts__clueless__League/Totally agree - well done Matt. This aspect doesn't seem to have been picked up in the media at all so far - not only do we get the 10 point deduction, but whatever happens we get relegated too due to this "either/or" clause. It would seem fairer to say we either get it this year, OR next year - one or the other - not keep their options open so we get the "what if" penalty as Matt calls it. Have any other club had this type of clause in their 10 point deduction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 Totally agree - well done Matt. This aspect doesn't seem to have been picked up in the media at all so far - not only do we get the 10 point deduction, but whatever happens we get relegated too due to this "either/or" clause. It would seem fairer to say we either get it this year, OR next year - one or the other - not keep their options open so we get the "what if" penalty as Matt calls it. Have any other club had this type of clause in their 10 point deduction? Yes, every other club thats got it, its to stop relegated clubs from having no penalty at all (because they are already relegated) and going into admin during the last game of the season. Saints had the option to take it this season but they refused it, they had the option to wait a couple of weeks and take the hit on next season, he cant blame the league for that. He can blame the people who thought the points penalty wouldnt apply. TBH, he has no clue at all. Id expect him to understand the rules and know why they are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 Yes, every other club thats got it, its to stop relegated clubs from having no penalty at all (because they are already relegated) and going into admin during the last game of the season. Saints had the option to take it this season but they refused it, they had the option to wait a couple of weeks and take the hit on next season, he cant blame the league for that. He can blame the people who thought the points penalty wouldnt apply. TBH, he has no clue at all. Id expect him to understand the rules and know why they are there. Why not just say we get it next year then? - if we stay up we start CCC with -10, if we go down we start L1 with -10. That would be more consistent surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's There Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 Some good points made here guys. Before reading them I had just been on the Football Focus website posting some commenst in the hope that the issue might be raised on their programme. Here is what I wrote: "As a Saints fan, I am shocked by the ridiculous decision reached this week by the Football League investigation into Southampton Football Club. Whatever the links may be between the club and the PLC, that is not the issue and Lord Mawhinney's attempts to suggest it is are laughable. Like it or not, the rules clearly state that any FOOTBALL CLUB going into administration should be deducted 10 points. No mention is made of these 10 points applying if a holding company goes into administration as is the case here. While the rules may have been intended to penalise cases like this, the fact is that the wording of the Football League's own rules does not support this decision. I would venture to suggest that they are on perilous legal ground. It looks like this is going to be yet another example of footballing authorities living in ivory towers out of touch with the real world. I envisage that once again we will see an appeal against a footballing authority decision which will ultimately result in the football club in question receiving substantial compensation, further undermining the game of football. I call upon Lord Mawhinney and co. to reverse this decision forthwith or to resign before facing the inevitable humiliation that will result from a legal appeal. Furthermore, I call upon the Football League to sit down around the table and re-evaluate what is anyway a ridiculous ruling. To penalise football clubs that are in serious financial difficulties in a way that will further jeopardise these clubs cannot be a logical thing to do. A more sensible ruling would see football clubs penalised for clearly cheating the system - i.e. NOT for going into administration, but rather for using administration as a means to make unfair footballing advantage. Such an accusation cannot be levied at Darlington, Rotherham, Bournemouth, and Southampton - to name but a few clubs affected by this ridiculous rule. Why should the cheating of a few clubs be used to affect the financial livelihoods of clubs with genuine financial problems? I hope that you will be able to highlight this issue in your programme." Perhaps Chapel End Charlie's ideas should also be posted to the BBC/Sky/Talksport, etc. as Gingeletiss has suggested. I Know that I don't write a lot, but I quite agree with all the above. It's time this daft football law is altered, even if we're punished ..we have to think about the good of the game as a whole ( unlike the FL!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 Have any other club had this type of clause in their 10 point deduction? It's the same for every club it that respect and always has been since the points deduction rule was brought in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 I wish I had been wrong but I said this is what the League would do. Since we are already heading for relegation we will start next season 10 points down. Why oh why did those idiots Lowe, Cowan, Jones and Wilde carry on beyond the March deadline? I don't get tis? Does it mean that is we survive this season we shall start minus 10 next season or is it 2 bites of the cherry? If we survive they dock the points this season and we still go down??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 I don't get tis? Does it mean that is we survive this season we shall start minus 10 next season or is it 2 bites of the cherry? If we survive they dock the points this season and we still go down??? Finnish outside the dropzone this season and we lose the 10 points this season. Finnish in the drop zone this season and we lose the 10 points next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 Good discussion taking place on SS..Soccer Saturday re Saints, and points deductions in general. 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