Oh when the Saints, go...

[Terminal Boardom]

The thing is that the 10 point punishment clearly doesn't stop clubs running up excessive debt that they can't service - the number of clubs to whom it's been applied shows it's not a real disincentive.

All it actually does is punish a club after the event, and make it less likely to be rescued - Southampton with a 10 point deduction is obviously a less worthwhile investment than Southampton without one - so it's a double-whammy that hits a club, and its supporters - when they're already down.

Plus, of course, when Wrexham were punished in this way it was because their owner was trying to force them out of business so he could build houses on their ground, so the deduction actually helped him wreck the club.

What is needed is some kind of early-warning system, so that action can be taken before a club goes into administration, rather than punishing them when it's too late. The Football League has worked out such a system where club's tax records would be available to the FL to check up on, and clubs would have to confirm that they were up-to-date with all tax payments (these are usually the biggest debt problem).

The FL is currently waiting to vote on these proposals - although a certain K Bates of Leeds is canvassing clubs to vote against them!

maybe the FA should put together some proper controls on who owns and runs a club so cnuts like Bates can't get anywhere near one again.

If this was normal everyday business, the directors would be barred from holding similar positions elsewhere. Why oh why doesn't this happen in football?

[gh7901]

Too many times football clubs live beyond their means. It would be interesting to see how the authorities would react if either say,Liverpool, Man Utd or Chelsea went tits up financially. Would they be hit with a 10 point deduction?

I would think not. Whereas I despise the sheep shagging in-breds down the M4, it was disgusting the way they were treated for doing exactly what Spurs did (illegal payments) yet the punishments were completely different.

No, if only becasue the PL's standrd points deduction is 8 points - to reflect the fewer games polayed in a season.

But the rule certainly exists in the PL rulebook, so I don't see how they'd not impose it in the event of a PL club going into administration.

Yeah, I reckon it would be imposed. The big clubs have a lot of power but they arent exempt from the rules, especially if its as clear cut as this - you're either in administration or not

[Huntley & Palmer]

So the impetus is on Southampton to try and win their remaining two matches and stay up, then take the 10 point hit this season and get relegated. Seems fair enough to me

[Deathy]

Where does another points deduction come into place? I only caught half of something on telly but there was talk of -27 points or something?

[TFF]

Where does another points deduction come into place? I only caught half of something on telly but there was talk of -27 points or something?

If they fail to arrange a CVA (which is difficult if the Revenue have an outstanding claim) before the start of the season the league could impose a further 17 point penalty.

Edit - explained better by readingfc13 here http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopi ... a#p2164623

I'm sure Dirk will have the full facts to hand.

[Deathy]

Ok cheers. Fingers crossed then...







































...that they don't get the CVA.

[soggy biscuit]

Something on the R5 yesterday about how West Ham are effectively in administration but due to Icelandic law the owners don't go through the same procedures and so it is not recognised as administration by the FA

[Huntley & Palmer]

Where does another points deduction come into place? I only caught half of something on telly but there was talk of -27 points or something?

If they fail to arrange a CVA (which is difficult if the Revenue have an outstanding claim) before the start of the season the league could impose a further 17 point penalty.

Edit - explained better by readingfc13 here http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopi ... a#p2164623

I'm sure Dirk will have the full facts to hand.

According to the paper, the creditors are willing to write off 50% of the overdraft and Southampton Council are looking into part ownership of St Marys to pay off some of the debt to Aviva. So they should be alright, maybe. Only two parties have gone into due dilligence so far

[Deathy]

Something on the R5 yesterday about how West Ham are effectively in administration but due to Icelandic law the owners don't go through the same procedures and so it is not recognised as administration by the FA

That wants looking at! I'd be pretty peeved if I were a Saint, Luton, Leeds...fan and that cheating club get away with even more!

[PieEater]

ation had been concluded," he told the BBC.

Leon Crouch, who has had two spells as chairman of the football club, hit out at the "terrible timing" of the League's decision.

He told BBC Five Live Sport: "Southampton Leisure Holdings and Southampton Football Club are two separate companies.

"Mark Fry is the administrator for SLH, he's not the administrator for the club. We're not in administration, we're paying our bills and I don't see how they can take these points off us.

"Southampton Football Club was set up so that if this ever happened, we would not have these points deducted - it's the way they have interpreted the rules.

Responding to Crouch on Five Live Sport, Football League chairman Lord Mawhinney said: "What he said that was of particular interest of me was when he said this structure was set up to avoid the football club having a penalty if it got into financial trouble.

In other words there are no dodgy paper company set ups that let you avoid the penalty. They should be sueing whoever advised them otherwise.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Something on the R5 yesterday about how West Ham are effectively in administration but due to Icelandic law the owners don't go through the same procedures and so it is not recognised as administration by the FA

Hold on a moment if a company is in Administration its in Administration whatever form that takes, there shouldn't be any distinction made based on where a parent company is based as every country must have similar processes the cover Administration and if those are triggered that should be sufficient for the PL, FL & FA to investigate matters.

So either it seems the Premiership clubs are treated differently (as we've seen before with the way Spurs were treated over their breach of the rules and West Ham were treated over the use of incorrectly registered players) or the current rules of the FA and FL and PL have a huge loophole as more and more clubs pick up foreign owners and foreign parent companies.

Methinks that the FA/FL/Premier League need to look at this and ensure they do not have any loopholes that can be exploited.

[Dirk Gently]

Something on the R5 yesterday about how West Ham are effectively in administration but due to Icelandic law the owners don't go through the same procedures and so it is not recognised as administration by the FA

Hold on a moment if a company is in Administration its in Administration whatever form that takes, there shouldn't be any distinction made based on where a parent company is based as every country must have similar processes the cover Administration and if those are triggered that should be sufficient for the PL, FL & FA to investigate matters.

So either it seems the Premiership clubs are treated differently (as we've seen before with the way Spurs were treated over their breach of the rules and West Ham were treated over the use of incorrectly registered players) or the current rules of the FA and FL and PL have a huge loophole as more and more clubs pick up foreign owners and foreign parent companies.

Methinks that the FA/FL/Premier League need to look at this and ensure they do not have any loopholes that can be exploited.

WH aren't in administration, so the rule doesn't apply. I think that under Icelandic law the parent company (Icelandic) gets a sort of "protection" from creditors so they can restructure - similar to the US Chapter 11 where a company can still trade but gets a period of grace from the creditors.

So by no sense of the word can anyone say that WH are in administration.

I think the reason Southampton got caught by this is that their holding company owns one asset (Southampton FC and the stadium) and has no income or expenditure apart from SFC. If it owned other assets or had other income streams then they might have had a case.

[The whole year inn]

So Saints' board put the club into administration confident that the club would not be deducted any points, with Wotte pleading that they wait until the end of the season

[Platypuss]

Where does another points deduction come into place? I only caught half of something on telly but there was talk of -27 points or something?

If they fail to arrange a CVA (which is difficult if the Revenue have an outstanding claim) before the start of the season the league could impose a further 17 point penalty.

Edit - explained better by readingfc13 here http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopi ... a#p2164623

I'm sure Dirk will have the full facts to hand.

Pretty sure the Taxman needs a significant slice of the money owed (25%?) in order to refuse the CVA.
I believe that in Southampton's case it's mainly their bank calling in their overdraft and they are pretty much paid up with the C&E.

[Once were Biscuitmen]

Interestingly aren't West Ham's Icelandic holding company essentially broke? It's probably much harder to argue that they are inextricably linked though as the club themselves seem to be solvent.

[Flip_Flop]

Apparently according to the newspapers, Saints could go out of business if a buyer isn't found in 8 days.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Apparently according to the newspapers, Saints could go out of business if a buyer isn't found in 8 days.

Think that might have a slightly detrimental affect on their appeal then

I see from the Non League paper yesterday that the Conference are reported as having been sounded out about taking Southampton if they do sink without trace in the summer (presumably that would save Chester from relegation).

[Deathy]

Deathy likes this

[handbags_harris]

Apparently according to the newspapers, Saints could go out of business if a buyer isn't found in 8 days.

Think that might have a slightly detrimental affect on their appeal then

I see from the Non League paper yesterday that the Conference are reported as having been sounded out about taking Southampton if they do sink without trace in the summer (presumably that would save Chester from relegation).

That could be interesting from a personal point of view due to a £10 wager back in August with Compo's Hat that Chester wouldn't go down

[eddiegrundy]

Can you name three ships that have left Southhampton never to return?

Titanic

Premiership

Championship

(Nicked from another message board but worth a repeat)