ART Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 Stockport did today what Rupert Lowe and Michael Wilde had been planning from day one after they returned to the club. They gambled that Jan would build a team and get sufficient points like Stockport to avoid getting relegated. That is why they panicked and appointed Wotte still trying to avoid relegation. Sadly, they were caught out and their evil plans didn't succeed. They were left with no alternative than to screw everyone,, got us relegated and declared admiinistration thinking we'd not lose the ten points. If the FL allow either of them even to return, to participate in the sport even again, they're as corrupted and bent as half the top people in football. The game of football stinks because the types like Lowe and Wilde can do what they do and get clean off of their evil deeds.
aintforever Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 If Lowe is part of a group trying to buy the club then it is obvious why he waited until after the deadline. Being on -10 means we are guaranteed at least two seasons in Div 1, the price of the club will be alot less.
Windmill Arm 2 Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 Sorry I cant rejoice in another clubs problems. Football is in a mess an the sooner the big 4 bugger off to a super league the better.There are many threads complaining what Norwich, Forest, Luton wrote about our demise and here (some) are doing the same. That is itself would further spoil the english game IMO
brmbrm Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 The rules are 100% clear and transparent. It takes a particularly inept sort of incompetence to go into admin a few days after the cut-off and get BOTH relegated AND start the following season at -10 points. Now where could we possibly find such an incompetent leader..........
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 Its a sorry state, the FL obviously like putting down lesser clubs!
benjii Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 "In the last five seasons," it said, "Saints have had 11 managers, 20 coaches, 109 players, four different boards, three plc chairmen, three football chairmen, 21 directors, two Ted Bates statues and one administrator." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/championship/charlton/5251841/Charlton-Norwich-and-Southampton-have-suffered-heavy-fall-from-grace.html What I find most interesting from that is that we had a lower wage bill than both Charlton and Norwich last year. Norwich are absolutely dependent on continual investment from Dehlia and Charlton had to raise £14.7m from shareholders and directors. Yet we are stuffed because our investment = 0.
benjii Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 Yes, they state that if a football club goes into administration, they will be deducted 10 points. Southampton Football Club is not (yet) in administration. While there may be very obvious ties between SFC and SLH, the Football League rules state that everything applies to the football club only. They've (arguably rightly) decided that we've exposed a loophole and should still be punished accordingly. They've (almost certainly wrongly) decided that Stockport haven't exposed a different loophole in the same rule, and will essentially get away with a points deduction that means the square root of sod all to them. How on earth have Stockport exploited anything? I'm sure they'd rather not be in admin. What possible advantage have they gained? In this case, the rules have been applied. Simple as that. The rules might be stupid but I don't think Stockport have exploited anything. EDIT: Sorry - you said "exposed" which I misread as "exploited" for some reason.
SFC Forever Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 If Lowe is part of a group trying to buy the club then it is obvious why he waited until after the deadline. Being on -10 means we are guaranteed at least two seasons in Div 1, the price of the club will be alot less. Don't agree. 10 points is not going to stop us if we are good enough. Not being good enough will however.
SaintBobby Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 If you went and read their website you will see that they were put into administration by David Farms Limited not doing a Leeds as you put it Try reading and you may have a bit more sympathy for them http://www.stockportcounty.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10419~1644145,00.html I don't think they've been cynical - just that they have gone into admin when the points penalty is totally irrelevant to them. This is a serious loophole in the rules. I'm certainly not unsympathetic to Stockport. I don't want any club to go into admin (unless, possibly it made a tangible difference to Saints), but the present rules are not equitable. Possibly not even clear.
SaintBobby Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 Don't agree. 10 points is not going to stop us if we are good enough. Not being good enough will however. Ten points is a big, big starting disavantage. I wouldn't say it makes promotion impossible, by any means, but it raises the bar enormously. I think our chances of promotion are considerably less than half of what they would have been without the -10.
John Boy Saint Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 I am still waiting for West Ham to get their 10 point deduction as their holding company is also in administration thanks to the collapse of the Icelandic Banking system............................. Ooops! silly me they are Billy Big ****** Premier league, under a different ruler.
dubsaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Just heard on Talksport that Southend have gone into administration and start on minus 10 in Lge 1 next season ! That means that we do not start at the very bottom (alphabetically !). Great news, eh ? No they have 10 pts deducted now not next season
Dan Johnson Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 The Football League really need to sort this once and for all. They shouldn't be able to, as has been said, allow Stockport to effectively "do a Leeds" and take a completely meaningless deduction. The deduction should be seen as a punishment for poor financial control. Stockport's punishment is dropping from one meaningless league position to another. Whoop-de-doo. COMPLETELY agree!!! This rule is a disgrace!!!!
ladysaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I may be repeating something already on this thread but Stockport have gone into admin after the cut off date but there 10 point deduction applies this season so they are safe from being relegated due to their greater goal difference. How come they had the points deducted this season and not next. I really dont understand the rules which the FL are applying.
saints_is_the_south Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I may be repeating something already on this thread but Stockport have gone into admin after the cut off date but there 10 point deduction applies this season so they are safe from being relegated due to their greater goal difference. How come they had the points deducted this season and not next. I really dont understand the rules which the FL are applying. +1. The Football League don't appear to have much of a clue on what their own rules actually are.
ART Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 If Stockport had not had sufficient points and were going to be relegated anyway the points would have been deducted next season. The same applied to Saints and why we have tried desperately to win both our final games so that the points deduction would have applied this season. In Saints situation we would have still been relegated by the deduction this season but free of deductions next season. As I pointed out earlier, Lowe and Wilde were aiming to do as Stockport and let us get enough points to avoid relegation. Didn't work out and they really c o c k e d it up.
ladysaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I dont buy that as Stockport are going to be safe because they drop to 50 points but their goal difference is so superior they would have to loose about 10 nil to go down.
CB Fry Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I may be repeating something already on this thread but Stockport have gone into admin after the cut off date but there 10 point deduction applies this season so they are safe from being relegated due to their greater goal difference. How come they had the points deducted this season and not next. I really dont understand the rules which the FL are applying. Correct. I am one of those that is not questioning our deduction or how it is applied in our case - we've broken the rules and its a fair cop. But this is unfair - the punishment is, according to Mawhinney, supposed to be applied when it hurts the most - either to relegate a club or start the season on minus ten. Stockport haven't been punished at all, and now have an unfair advantage over us next season. A complete joke.
Rusty Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I really dont understand the rules which the FL are applying. To put it simply, if you finish the season outside the relegation zone, you are docked 10 points from your current total and see what happens. If you finish the season inside the relegation zone, then you are docked 10 points from next seasons total.
mr_bishiuk Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I don't think they've been cynical - just that they have gone into admin when the points penalty is totally irrelevant to them. This is a serious loophole in the rules. I'm certainly not unsympathetic to Stockport. I don't want any club to go into admin (unless, possibly it made a tangible difference to Saints), but the present rules are not equitable. Possibly not even clear. How is it a loophole? Weren't Southampton trying to stay up so that the points could be deducted this year? What to you want to happen, The deduction be suspended until it means a relegation?
SKATE_HATE Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 This points thing is ****ing ********! We have been deducted 10 points next season as doing it this year wouldn't make any difference due to being relegated already. Fair enough. Stockport have been deducted 10 points this season even though it still makes no difference. They can't get relegated due to their superior goal difference. Why are they not being deducted 10 points next season? The football League are a bunch of ****s who don't know what the **** their doing and just make the ****ing rules up as they go! Surely this can only help in any appeal from SFC though?
ladysaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 No my point is that there was clearly a cut off date if you went into administration before that date then the points deduction applied this season, after that date it applied to the next season, this hasnt been applied in Stockport's case. We on the other hand, thought we had found a loophole, but understand the FL put the ruling in that if we stayed up it the points would be deducted this season and if we went down next season, nothing to do with the date we went into admin.
eurosaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Author Posted 1 May, 2009 Basically the March deadline and the penalty only applies to teams who are close to the relegation zone but not to others ! Very, very fair and equitable that is, eh ??? The FL are a bunch of jokers !!!
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 We will now be smaller than teams like Doncaster, Peterborough and Blackpool.......... never thought I would be saying that. Oh come on, we've been a league below bloody WIGAN for 4 years, and Hull City for a season, and they're only the third biggest team in Hull...
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 (edited) No my point is that there was clearly a cut off date if you went into administration before that date then the points deduction applied this season, after that date it applied to the next season, this hasnt been applied in Stockport's case. We on the other hand, thought we had found a loophole, but understand the FL put the ruling in that if we stayed up it the points would be deducted this season and if we went down next season, nothing to do with the date we went into admin. Not quite sure if you're saying what I'm about to but I see an "if we..." which makes me think you think they specified the deduction would be next season especially for Saints ? It was nothing to do with us specifically, the 10 point hangover is the same for everyone. The cut off date is only a date before which the points deduction is DEFINITELY applied this season, after that date it depends on the club's position. Stockport's deduction SHOULD apply next season because taking ten off them now won't affect their divisional status. Ours will apply next season for the same reason. If we had a few more points it would apply this season and the -10 would relegate us, as we're shoite we're already relegated without it so it holds over to when it's actually a punishment. Edited 1 May, 2009 by The9 Cos the Football League make it up as they go along...
ladysaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Stockport's deduction will apply next season because taking ten off them now won't affect their divisional status. Ours will apply next season for the same reason. If we had a few more points it would apply this season and the -10 would relegate us, as we're shoite we're already relegated without it so it holds over to when it's actually a punishment. No Stockports is being applied this season not next season.
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 So let me get this straight then... The FA did everything in their power to screw us over, stay up or not, yes? The FA are doing all they can to stop Stockport either getting relegated this season or starting with -10 next season, yes? Surely the fairest way to do things is if you go into adminstration after the deadine the points come off next season, if you go before the deadline then it's this season. Surely that's tha fairest way to do it or am I just paranoid in thinking the FA just want to screw us?? Daren, it's the Football League not the FA. And according to the FL's own rules, Stockport shouldn't receive a points deduction until next season.
Scummer Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Stockport's deduction will apply next season because taking ten off them now won't affect their divisional status. No, they've taken it off them now.
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 No Stockports is being applied this season not next season. Clearly it shouldn't be, so I think we're in agreement. Is this just what Sky were saying (incorrectly) or has it actually been confirmed by the FL ? :confused:
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I'll answer my own question : http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/LeagueOneNewsDetail/0,,10794~1644278,00.html I guess the justification is that Stockport are now within 3 points of the relegation zone and might be relegated. Nice for them to have a chance to stay up on the pitch...
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I've figured out what the problem is with this : Its a paradox - Stockport were 13 points clear of the relegation zone last week, with the -10 now they are 3 points clear of it with one game to play. According to the League's rules if they finish in the bottom 4 then the points deduction shouldn't happen until next season, but without the points deduction they won't finish in the bottom 4, so they'll be safe, in which case the -10 should be applied this season, therefore sending them down. Ummmmmm... nice work Football League, you have built a paradox into your rules. I suppose at least they've realised it and everyone involved knows what they have to do.
aintforever Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I guess the justification is that Stockport are now within 3 points of the relegation zone and might be relegated. Yeah, if Carlisle win 18-0. I see little difference in what Stockport are doing compared to what Leeds did. Both timed their administration to avoid a deduction next season. They should start on minus 10 like us IMO.
Charlie Wayman Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 This is another f*** up by the FL. Surely, it is far too late in the season for points to be deducted this season, they should start with -10 next year same as us. Those blokes in blazars make it up as they go along... FL headquarters is in Lancashire, Stockport is in.... ? You've guessed it Lancashire. Somehow this smells of rancid sh*t*. Another anti-Southern softies swipe by unregulated tin-pot dictators. Makes me want to puke!
VectisSaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Stockport may still have points deducted next season if they don't come out of Admin with a CVA. Of course that applies to Saints as well, but as things stand going into Admin is not the end of the story.
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 This is another f*** up by the FL. Surely, it is far too late in the season for points to be deducted this season, they should start with -10 next year same as us. Those blokes in blazars make it up as they go along... FL headquarters is in Lancashire, Stockport is in.... ? You've guessed it Lancashire. Somehow this smells of rancid sh*t*. Another anti-Southern softies swipe by unregulated tin-pot dictators. Makes me want to puke! The cut off doesn't prevent points from being deducted late this season, it just guarantees points WILL be deducted the same season if the Admin occurs before it. Also, part of the County Borough of Stockport extended into Lancashire prior to 1974, but not the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport itself, which is in Greater Manchester, so that's a pretty tenous claim at best. Having just checked the League Table, Stockport would need the 4 teams immediately below to win and Carlisle to overturn an 18 goal deficit in order to get relegated. Clearly there's no possible grounds for their deduction applying this season when it will make absolutely no difference. The facts are that the FL have ignored their own rules, this deduction should either have happened before March or should apply next season.
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 (edited) Stockport may still have points deducted next season if they don't come out of Admin with a CVA. Of course that applies to Saints as well, but as things stand going into Admin is not the end of the story. Yes, but that doesn't stop the -10 deduction now from being contrary to FL rules. Edit - having now seen the exact wording it seems not... Edited 1 May, 2009 by The9
Whitey Grandad Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 If Stockport had not had sufficient points and were going to be relegated anyway the points would have been deducted next season. The same applied to Saints and why we have tried desperately to win both our final games so that the points deduction would have applied this season. In Saints situation we would have still been relegated by the deduction this season but free of deductions next season. As I pointed out earlier, Lowe and Wilde were aiming to do as Stockport and let us get enough points to avoid relegation. Didn't work out and they really c o c k e d it up. I must have missed that bit.
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Jeez if it keeps going like this there will come a point where its easier just to give those teams not in admin 10 point head start and start everyone else on 0 - ;-)
Whitey Grandad Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I've just found a copy of the League Regulations again. It's on this forum but I won't cut and paste (even though someone has already done so) http://www.thefootballforum.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=166603&st=40 From this it seems clear that you only get the deduction next season if you are relegated anyway.
Flyer Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Exactly, the rules have been followed to the letter. Carrying over the deduction only applies to relegated teams.
eelpie Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 If they finish more than 10 points above the relegation zne, I think it is applied the next season. Apparently not.
aintforever Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Exactly, the rules have been followed to the letter. Carrying over the deduction only applies to relegated teams. If they followed rules to the letter then a club who's holding company goes into admin doesn't get docked 10 points.
Pancake Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Apparently not. Indeed, I was wrong. How come poeple are getting worked up about Stockport having points deducted this season? In fact, the same thing was quoted by the FL after its look into the SFC/SLH situation: As the insolvency event occurred after The Football League's deadline of the fourth Thursday in March, the points deduction will take effect either: 1.In the current season, if Southampton avoid relegation to League 1; or 2.next season, if the club does not avoid relegation.http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/ChampionshipNewsDetail/0,,10794~1636735,00.html Only 2 options. There is no mention of it being held over to next season if you stay up by over 10 points.
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Indeed, I was wrong. How come poeple are getting worked up about Stockport having points deducted this season? In fact, the same thing was quoted by the FL after its look into the SFC/SLH situation: http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/ChampionshipNewsDetail/0,,10794~1636735,00.html Only 2 options. There is no mention of it being held over to next season if you stay up by over 10 points. The worked up thing is because of a misinterpretation of whether 10 points would be deducted this season if a team was not affected by relegation. As it is, if they're not being relegated they don't need to worry, the 10 comes off straight away anyway. I look forward to the FL rewriting the rules again when a team runs up massive debts getting themselves HUGELY into debt with a team of superstars which puts them 30 points clear and then only loses 10 points, seeing as there's no mention of the deductions affecting promotion-chasing teams yet... As for the Saints link, there wouldn't be a mention of us staying up by over 10 anyway, because it was mathematically impossible at that point and people would have thought they were taking the Michael.
CB Fry Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 But Mawhinney has said the "sporting sanction" has to be seen to have punished the team. That is the spirit of the law he was talking about the other day. Stockport haven't been punished at all, especially as they have gone into admin as tactically as we did when they know it won't hurt them. This one does stink, I'm afraid.
Pancake Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 But Mawhinney has said the "sporting sanction" has to be seen to have punished the team. That is the spirit of the law he was talking about the other day. Stockport haven't been punished at all, especially as they have gone into admin as tactically as we did when they know it won't hurt them. This one does stink, I'm afraid. They will, of course, get less finishing position money from the league as they have dropped down to 17th (?) place now.
SaintRobbie Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 REALITY CHECK: With our current manager and team without our better players (who are leaving this summer) and our 10 points deduction we ARE going to relegate to League 2. As far as I am concerned that is very very likely. New manager is a priority followed by a purchase of men. Then we have some hope.
Pancake Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 REALITY CHECK: With our current manager and team without our better players (who are leaving this summer) and our 10 points deduction we ARE going to relegate to League 2. As far as I am concerned that is very very likely. New manager is a priority followed by a purchase of men. Then we have some hope. So what is... a certainty or a probable?
Flyer Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 If they followed rules to the letter then a club who's holding company goes into admin doesn't get docked 10 points. The rules allow them to do it if anything akin to the the club being put in administration happens. Clearly putting the holding company in admin is trying to wipe out some football debt because thats all it deals with.
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Is it wrong that I'm more bothered with SaintRobbie's use of the term "we are going to relegate" than the actual concept of us "being relegated", which is at least the correct tense? Or is it just that I'm resigned to us being cack and I've not yet completely given up on education ?
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