Mole Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Not bitter at all, and certainly not dwelling on it. Some of us have seen this coming since the start of the season, so have got used to it. The unbelievable thing is that most on here didn't see it coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eaststander Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Perhaps if all clubs in our position came clean we could all be relegated and start on minus 10 points. Slightly cynical but a fair reflection on the poor business management decsions football clubs have been forced to make to compete since Rupert (no not that one) Murdoch first started meddling in football. There is only one winner in all of this an he is not even British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Yes we should except it and gain a little dignity that this great club has lost over the last few years. Move on and work on saving the club. No point having an appeal if the club has gone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Its hard to argue against the conclusions that the FL have drawn, but seeing as the moral justification is there and the legal justification is not far off, why am I left feeling that the club was set up ? It sounds like Grant Thornton steamed in there and started going beyond their remit (why ?) and when someone finally said "boo" to them, they packed up, walked out and made a summary report, which the FL pounced on. The whole thing stinks..... I don't think we've been set up at all. We tried to cheat the system with the lamest alibi imaginable, like a eight year old with a football looking sheepish next to a broken greenhouse window. The only thing that the FL did wrong was poncing about in the first place - they should have given us the ten points on the day we went into admin. Any idiot could see we deserved the penalty as per the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I don't think we've been set up at all. We tried to cheat the system with the lamest alibi imaginable, like a eight year old with a football looking sheepish next to a broken greenhouse window. The only thing that the FL did wrong was poncing about in the first place - they should have given us the ten points on the day we went into admin. Any idiot could see we deserved the penalty as per the rules. In retrospect I agree. Another **** up. And to think we could have taken the points this season back in March. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I say fight it for the following reasons; 1. The rules are a blunt instrument and were brought in because teams such as, Cardiff I believe and at least on other brought in new players on good terms whilst in admin as they knew they would be able to afford it once their debts had been cleared. This was deemed as getting a sporting advantage so a sporting penalty was applied. It is thought that why should clubs who are trying to be prudent be put at a disadvantage by poorly managed clubs. What sporting advantage did we gain from being in administration, we are in admin because we dropped out of the premier league whilst trying to build a new ground, trying to provide better facilities for the footballing community. 2. The rules are badly drafted and need to be revised by the FL, again not our fault. 3. The FL league got stung before by the courts when they thought companies were inextricably linked, ie Charlton and Granada with ITV Sport. So I say bring on the court case. 4. If we get taken over and look to pay back our debt, what damage has been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 The unbelievable thing is that most on here didn't see it coming! I'm not sure that's really the case. I think it's just that most preferred not to roll over on their backs, with their legs in the air, in front of it, whereas some did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Saint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 To be honest, what Mawhinney is saying is true. The parent company and the club are both 'inextricably' linked, and so I suppose we do deserve the penalty. Even the most biased of Southampton fans would have to admit that that is the case. However, the rules need to be changed in order to prevent this from happening again in the future. What I don't understand is why we'd bother contesting the decision. The Football League would never revoke their decision, and any appeal would put us at risk of being handed a further punishment. The last thing we'd want is to start on -17, or worse, -30! In my opinion, we should just accept the decision, continue our search for a potential buyer and look to rebuild our club. To appeal and drag this whole thing out just seems a waste of both time and money. I dont think you can be serious. The reason we dont, as the League's mealy-mouthed statement makes clear, is that we have NOT broken any rules. It really is that simple. The League really are being absurd. We MUST challenge it if only to stop them punishing other clubs on a whim when they have broken no rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Correct And concentrate our efforts on sueing Lowe/Wilde and/or Barclays for knowingly bringing the club into administration a few days after the March deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 To be honest I dont know. The legal loophole thing for me is ****** and I would kind of hate the idea we got let off on a technicality. Where i struggle to see the justice in it though is that teh principle debt ahs not been accumalted through some rash fantasy spending on a few moments of glory - but on infrastructure that benefits teh fans, and community and football at large, namely the stadium. The debt we do have with Barclays is teh more difficult case to argue because its almost the same as teh 7.5 mil we spent under Wilde and Crouch - on players for a promotion push - exactly teh thing for which this punsihment was designed to prevent happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 To be honest I dont know. As decisive as ever i see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 A penalty? we'd probably miss it anyway. Class, and sadly true. Rather accept the punishment now than go donw anyway and for them to decide to decuct the points next year after various hearings. Would be nice just to concentrate on football for once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 To be honest I dont know. The legal loophole thing for me is ****** and I would kind of hate the idea we got let off on a technicality. Where i struggle to see the justice in it though is that teh principle debt ahs not been accumalted through some rash fantasy spending on a few moments of glory - but on infrastructure that benefits teh fans' date=' and community and football at large, namely the stadium. [b']The debt we do have with Barclays is teh more difficult case to argue because its almost the same as teh 7.5 mil we spent under Wilde and Crouch - on players for a promotion push - exactly teh thing for which this punsihment was designed to prevent happening[/b]. Frank, with all due respect, you can't ring-fence debt like that. An equally valid statement could be that the debt with Barclays is almost the same as the loss of revenue since ...... well, since Mr Lowe. The debt is due to a number of factors, surely. But it's picked up speed as we've gone downhill. Or, as Trousers would say, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 As decisive as ever i see. Least I'm consistent ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Frank, with all due respect, you can't ring-fence debt like that. An equally valid statement could be that the debt with Barclays is almost the same as the loss of revenue since ...... well, since Mr Lowe. The debt is due to a number of factors, surely. But it's picked up speed as we've gone downhill. Or, as Trousers would say, I would agree uyou cant ring fence it like that, but from any way you look at it we diod spend money on a failed promotion push which we really di dnot ahve because Wilde never followed up on the investment promise - Crouch may well be the victim in all this and it gives me no pleasure to see him in this plight, but he was naive at that time - too trusting that funds would materialise. Whatever we think to teh FL and outseide world we did something that was a risk, a risk that is discouraged by the rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I would agree uyou cant ring fence it like that' date=' but from any way you look at it we diod spend money on a failed promotion push which we really di dnot ahve because Wilde never followed up on the investment promise - Crouch may well be the victim in all this and it gives me no pleasure to see him in this plight, but he was naive at that time - too trusting that funds would materialise. Whatever we think to teh FL and outseide world we did something that was a risk, a risk that is discouraged by the rule book.[/quote'] Whereas this season all the spending has been of value an just....cripes I can't believe some of this. Some of that promotion spend was recouped by Kenwynne Jones, Bale and Walcott fees! All the debt is not down to the failed promotion push...its caused by ALL parties given players ridiculous contracts....who set up the Rasiak transfer ? It employing stupid Dutch coaches, advisors, putting decent coaches on gardening leave! They are all culpable in this not just Crouch/Wilde but every single one including Dave Jones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Whereas this season all the spending has been of value an just....cripes I can't believe some of this. Some of that promotion spend was recouped by Kenwynne Jones, Bale and Walcott fees! All the debt is not down to the failed promotion push...its caused by ALL parties given players ridiculous contracts....who set up the Rasiak transfer ? It employing stupid Dutch coaches, advisors, putting decent coaches on gardening leave! They are all culpable in this not just Crouch/Wilde but every single one including Dave Jones. I have not said they are not all culpable, and the impact of the decisions taken by Lowe and others are well documented, but you have to look at how it appears on the outside and to the FL - ultimately there is a bottom line - they will argue that the monies received from those sales should NOT have been spent as these were needed when the parchute paymnet stopped to cover the existing contracts - as we had no guarrantees we would be able to sell these high wage earners on.... as such from the bigger picture, we did spend money to try and fund a promotion push... and now we are in debt, thats how everyone will see it and you cant really argue against it. we took taht risk, it failed and ultimately we wer unable to sustain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Whereas this season all the spending has been of value an just....cripes I can't believe some of this. Some of that promotion spend was recouped by Kenwynne Jones, Bale and Walcott fees! All the debt is not down to the failed promotion push...its caused by ALL parties given players ridiculous contracts....who set up the Rasiak transfer ? It employing stupid Dutch coaches, advisors, putting decent coaches on gardening leave! They are all culpable in this not just Crouch/Wilde but every single one including Dave Jones. All of the promotion spend and more was recovered from player sales in the close season afterwards,we even made money on the affair, it's not what we spent but what we got for our money that's the problem. The real culprits are people like Idiakiez,Jesus, Vignal,even Claus, vast sums of money for absolutely sod all result because they just didn't play every game ,week in week out but took us for massive amounts of money all the same. You look at Lloyd James, he's played what 38 games or so this season on 3K (or less) a week,you take Vignal 23 games for a year at 10K (or more) a week. At the end of the day the result is about the same,give or take 4 points (which make a difference of course) the difference in cost is enormous. 520K against 150K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insertfunnyname Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 apparently the Board believed we wouldn't get it so had no concerns about putting us in admin - talk about backfire http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8016748.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 To be honest I don't have a problem with the points deduction, its how they've done it that has annoyed me. They should of given it to us for next season or take it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 apparently the Board believed we wouldn't get it so had no concerns about putting us in admin - talk about backfire http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8016748.stm Strange, they're supposed to be pro football administrators and yet it was obvious to me, a science wallah, that we'd get -10. I just can't see how they came to that conclusion. The League ALWAYS deducts points because they are absolutely against financial and legal jiggery pokery by Oright Tonys from Basildon and their cohorts. The club created the debts ,the PLC assumed them, if you can't see that you need locking up in Moorgreen or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Saint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 We have to accept it. The FL always wins. But we could sue Barclays or Lowe or both for not doing their homework re the March deadline. I am sorry to harp on but this simply is not so. The Football League are the living embodiment as evil as we know it today. The simple fact is that we have broken no rules. The Football League know this. They set up an inquiry with the express remit of finding grounds for saying that we did. Their statement demonstrates succinctly and clearly that they did not. It also says that despite the fact that Saints clearly did not break any rules we will punish them anyway. This is the way that fascist dictatorships function. An appeal must surely be upheld and if the League appeal fails that to the FA or even the Court of Arbitration wont. This is not just a matter of Saints. I would feel exactly the same about any club. You simply cannot have an organisation flying in the face of its rules. It would be a recipe for chaos; prejudice and completely arbitrary decision making. The Saints have a duty to humanity and out of respect for the rule of law to appeal. Equally pertinent what sort of squalid erks run the football league? Shouldn't their interest be in supporting their members clubs through difficult times, not searching desparately for ways of punishing and damaging members who have broken no rules. Bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAS Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I am sorry to harp on but this simply is not so. The Football League are the living embodiment as evil as we know it today. The simple fact is that we have broken no rules. The Football League know this. They set up an inquiry with the express remit of finding grounds for saying that we did. Their statement demonstrates succinctly and clearly that they did not. It also says that despite the fact that Saints clearly did not break any rules we will punish them anyway. This is the way that fascist dictatorships function. An appeal must surely be upheld and if the League appeal fails that to the FA or even the Court of Arbitration wont. This is not just a matter of Saints. I would feel exactly the same about any club. You simply cannot have an organisation flying in the face of its rules. It would be a recipe for chaos; prejudice and completely arbitrary decision making. The Saints have a duty to humanity and out of respect for the rule of law to appeal. Equally pertinent what sort of squalid erks run the football league? Shouldn't their interest be in supporting their members clubs through difficult times, not searching desparately for ways of punishing and damaging members who have broken no rules. Bizarre. Well said and spot on. All this talk of accepting a ruling that is clearly wrong is just madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Well said and spot on. All this talk of accepting a ruling that is clearly wrong is just madness. What is "clearly wrong" about it? SLH is entirely SFC. And the bits that aren't SFC are not the bits that would drag SLH into administration. SLH = SFC. It was a little scam we tried to pull, it failed, because it was a pathetic scam that was never going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 I have not said they are not all culpable' date=' and the impact of the decisions taken by Lowe and others are well documented, but you have to look at how it appears on the outside and to the FL - ultimately there is a bottom line - they will argue that the monies received from those sales should NOT have been spent as these were needed when the parchute paymnet stopped to cover the existing contracts - as we had no guarrantees we would be able to sell these high wage earners on.... as such from the bigger picture, we did spend money to try and fund a promotion push... and now we are in debt, thats how everyone will see it and you cant really argue against it. we took taht risk, it failed and ultimately we wer unable to sustain it.[/quote'] This is all true, but if the administration occurred solely because the bank reduced or restricted the overdraft facility then morally it is a different situation. If somebody walked in tomorrow with a cheque for £1m as a loan then we would all be able to carry on for a bit, at least until the club is sold to a new owner with more capital backing. The club itself would have survived without going into administration and would not deserve the points sanction. I'm quite sure that most of the clubs in the country are operating in a debt situation and if the backers suddenly withdrew their support they would all fold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowesboy Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Every Saints fan knows what Malwinney is saying is correct. Lets forget about appeals and legal action as it will get us nowhere, ask Ken Bates. Lets try and restore some dignity to Southampton football club and take our punishment on the chin. 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