Pancake 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? It gives me the shudders when ever I see him use it.
CB Fry Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 They will, of course, get less finishing position money from the league as they have dropped down to 17th (?) place now. Do they even do finishing money in that division? I thought it was just a prem thing. Pretty sure there is no placement money in any other league.
saint_ed Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Don't know if its been discussed through this thread, by why the f**k have Stockport been given the points deduction this season as opposed to next season????
The9 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Don't know if its been discussed through this thread, by why the f**k have Stockport been given the points deduction this season as opposed to next season???? Oh good you've found it. Now all you have to do is read the thread (ignoring my bits cos I was talking cobblers at the start) as you'll know.
saint_ed Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Oh good you've found it. Now all you have to do is read the thread (ignoring my bits cos I was talking cobblers at the start) as you'll know. Thanks, the initial prospect of having to read through 4 pages did not appeal to me, however luckily the answer to my question became apparent by the end of the first page which in turn saved about 3 minutes of my life. pheew!
Whitey Grandad Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Thanks, the initial prospect of having to read through 4 pages did not appeal to me, however luckily the answer to my question became apparent by the end of the first page which in turn saved about 3 minutes of my life. pheew! You would only waste those 3 minutes on something else. Like I just have.
eurosaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Author Posted 1 May, 2009 Thanks, the initial prospect of having to read through 4 pages did not appeal to me, however luckily the answer to my question became apparent by the end of the first page which in turn saved about 3 minutes of my life. pheew! As the original poster on this thread I am happy that you did not start at the very beginning cos if you had you would have learnt that SOUTHEND had been docked 10 points and it would apply NEXT SEASON ! 2 minor details have since emerged, STOCKPORT have been docked -10 to be applied THIS SEASON ! On the bright side I have achieved a personal record for the longest thread of my Saintsweb existence, deep joy, deep joy !!
SET Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 as posted on another forum Got this from a mate..........bad times We've been royally shafted by the owner of Sale Sharks, someone worth £200m+. He bought the club from the bloke who oversaw our best period ever in the 90s. He came with supposedly good intentions bringing Sale Sharks with him, who needed a ground bigger than their 5000 capacity place. Those who didn't trust him suggested he only came because his rugby team needed somewhere bigger. After 2 relegations, the departure of several decent players for ****ing peanuts and losses of £1.5m in his final year as owner, he finally did what a few people thought he'd do. He sold the club but kept the ground. In keeping the ground though, he also kept the valuable income streams that came with it. Conference and banqueting was big business, making us several hundred thousand a year, a ****load in lower league terms. They also kept the income for food and drink which included our ****ing games. All we were left with was gate money and programme sales. TV money and sponsorship too. Not enough to compete, as it turns out. Add to that the fact we had to service an outstanding debt of £4m by paying 30% of all transfer profit to him. So £500k is only actually worth £350k to us. We had no option though. The people who signed the deal apparently had no option or he would have put us into admin. The ****. At first the supporters trust struggled. Our first season of ownership was in the basement division. We stayed up on the last day. We somehow made a profit though. Well, that's what was said at the time. The next year we missed the playoffs on goal difference. The year after (last season) we went up via the playoffs and have brought in circa £2m in transfer fees. The problem is the MD and Chairman during this time were trusted too much. Or maybe they covered their tracks after getting in too deep. Fans running clubs was supposed to safeguard our future, not wanting to put us at risk by overspending that a millionaire might do. Except they didn't. Last summer they obtained a £250k loan from a venture capital company in order to secure an overdraft from the bank. This was supposedly to help us trade like a normal business. The thing is though, the following month we sold Liam Dickinson for £800k. At that point we should have replaced him with a season long loan player from a Premiership club and got our house in order. We should have said thanks but no thanks to the 250k loan and used the remaining profit on Dickinson to pay historical tax debts. But instead, we kept the 250k loan in place and spent a further 450k on new players. The plan was that we had significant interest in 4 or 5 of our players and if 2 of them went in the transfer window that would cover the losses. As it turned out things caught up with us. We did sell two players in January and let several more go. But our weak position was there for all to see and we got peanuts for ****ing good players. It's close to a fact that if we'd kept last years team together and added the goalkeeper we ended up getting (who came to us having never played a league game at crewe and within 6 months was in the full Wales squad) we'd have been promoted by now. I'm convinced. We were better than MK and P'boro. As it is, the MD ****ed off earlier this year. The new chairman undercovered the tonnes of hidden ****e. We saved our skin (and admin) 2 or 3 times with hours to spare. We worked with Kennedy on a plan to go forward, with him getting his money back and us having a positive future. Crucially the 250k loan (with 50k kickback) was set to be paid off in full, with a significant amount offered just this morning. It was within hours of being announced. Then the loan company forced us into administration. Nobody knows why. There is speculation that they've been working alongside the leader of Stockport council (Dave Goddard, an absolute **** of a man who has in the past been pictured on council business wearing a Man City tie and who also suggested running buses from Stockport to Eastlands when it first opened). Basically, this one will run and run. In so many ways I feel like throwing my considerable weight behind a brand new club in the mould of FCUM, AFC Liverpool, AFC Telford, Aldershot, Wimbledon etc etc. As things stand we are in for a slow death. Painful too. We will end up in non league anyway. I'd rather we started there and moved upwards and ended up there, a shell of a football club. It's fairly certain we've played our last game at Edgeley Park. Brighton away could well be the last game Stockport County FC play. I hope I'm wrong.
saint_ed Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 As the original poster on this thread I am happy that you did not start at the very beginning cos if you had you would have learnt that SOUTHEND had been docked 10 points and it would apply NEXT SEASON ! 2 minor details have since emerged, STOCKPORT have been docked -10 to be applied THIS SEASON ! On the bright side I have achieved a personal record for the longest thread of my Saintsweb existence, deep joy, deep joy !! I'm afraid I noticed the Southend comment on the day you created this thread
sidthesquid Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 +1. Anybody enjoying another team going into administration aren't proper football fans IMO. There might be the odd Israeli gun-runner owned exception
SW11_Saint Posted 2 May, 2009 Posted 2 May, 2009 The rule is a bit complex, but basically fair. If you go into admin before the March deadline, you lsoe the points there are then, in the current season, irrespective of where you stand in the league. If you go into admin after this stage, you lose the points in the present season IF this makes a material difference, otherwise they are carried over to next season. This is to stop what happeend to Leeds a coupel fo years back, they went into admin when already relegated, assuming they coudl take the hit then - and not caring that they were simply relegated by an additional ten points. Because Saints have been relegated irrespective of the ten point penalty, we take the hit next year. The annoying thing is that if we had gone into admin a few days earlier (before the deadline), we would have taken the penalty this year and could have started League One with a clean sheet. And that is they key here to my mind - can anyone seriously believe that Stockport moving down a few places constitutes a "material difference" to them? -10 next year certainly would though. Is it fair, given that we have both committed the same "crime" that they start out with a 10 point advantage over us next year? The answer is indupitably NO.
Flyer Posted 2 May, 2009 Posted 2 May, 2009 And that is they key here to my mind - can anyone seriously believe that Stockport moving down a few places constitutes a "material difference" to them? -10 next year certainly would though. Is it fair, given that we have both committed the same "crime" that they start out with a 10 point advantage over us next year? The answer is indupitably NO. So why did Saints and nearly all the other clubs vote to have that rule bought in? Only QPR and Leeds voted against it. A team has no right to complain or feel hard done by due to a rule that they approved themselves.
St Paul Posted 2 May, 2009 Posted 2 May, 2009 So why did Saints and nearly all the other clubs vote to have that rule bought in? Only QPR and Leeds voted against it. A team has no right to complain or feel hard done by due to a rule that they approved themselves. You are getting deductions mixed up. The -10 was a league rule brought in at the request of all Clubs. The deduction that the Clubs voted on and Leeds oppossed was the -15 for exitting admin without a CVA.At the time Ken Bates was adamant that Clubs voting against Leeds' appeall would come back and haunt them. Since that vote, every Club that's gone into admin has come out with another points deduction (-15 being the minimum)
Flyer Posted 2 May, 2009 Posted 2 May, 2009 You are getting deductions mixed up. The -10 was a league rule brought in at the request of all Clubs. The deduction that the Clubs voted on and Leeds oppossed was the -15 for exitting admin without a CVA.At the time Ken Bates was adamant that Clubs voting against Leeds' appeall would come back and haunt them. Since that vote, every Club that's gone into admin has come out with another points deduction (-15 being the minimum) Still, the fact is Saints approved the rule penalising clubs with the points carrying over next season and allowing the FL to deduct points if they go into anything akin to admin. I hate the idea on any points penalty but it had to come in when clubs decided to cheat the system. Its a necessary evil.
OldNick Posted 2 May, 2009 Posted 2 May, 2009 Still, the fact is Saints approved the rule penalising clubs with the points carrying over next season and allowing the FL to deduct points if they go into anything akin to admin. I hate the idea on any points penalty but it had to come in when clubs decided to cheat the system. Its a necessary evil.dont worry flyer your time will come as well.You dont think those new owners bought you for football reasons surely.
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 2 May, 2009 Posted 2 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 ? Stockport but hey the way things are going we'll be mid table after the first game of next season
SW11_Saint Posted 2 May, 2009 Posted 2 May, 2009 So why did Saints and nearly all the other clubs vote to have that rule bought in? Only QPR and Leeds voted against it. A team has no right to complain or feel hard done by due to a rule that they approved themselves. Because we have a bunch of pr1cks in the boardroom - who then thought they could circumvent the very rules they voted in setting up the Plc/FC structure. Sums them up. I'm not having a go at the rule, more the intepretation of it.
SW11_Saint Posted 2 May, 2009 Posted 2 May, 2009 So why did Saints and nearly all the other clubs vote to have that rule bought in? Only QPR and Leeds voted against it. A team has no right to complain or feel hard done by due to a rule that they approved themselves. BTW - are you a QPR fan, or a Saints fan? If the former, why do you bother coming on here, are QPR really that boring??
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