Sothampton decision deferred

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="UTS"]

Exploiting a loophole ?

I just explained that the hodling company was set up in 1997 thats 12 years ago ! 

There was no points deduction going on then.

SLH also owns a a property company as well which owns a significal pile of land.

You chaps need to get a grip on what a holding company is all about.

If the holding company was set up after relegation or indeed in the last 12 months then THAT would indeed be trying to exploit the situation.

I dont think the directors where looking for a loophole when their share values of £2m, £1.6m, £1.4m a number of £500K+ went up in smoke. Admin was the last thing they would of wanted losing all that dough !

Instead of crying about us you should be not trying to exploit the situation as it was not SFC that has put you in the bottom six of the league fighting relegation.

Do not forget that you where saved from admin and 10 points deduction recently and it may still well happen in months to come.

 

Adios canaries

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

You are exploiting a loophole by arguing that the 10 point penalty should not apply. Nothing to do with why the company was set up or that holding companies are commonplace.

Oh and that land owned by SLH. I am sure you will correct me if i am wrong but is that not a peice of land donated to THE FOOTBALL CLUB by an ex Chairman/Director in his will when he died?

Keep trying but you are not going to convince anyone.

For what its worth you won''t find any of us disagreeing that we are where we are in the league because we have been sh*t and we deserve to be there. However the prospect of another club getting its debts written off and getting away without a penalty is galling to say the least and if you getting docked 10 points helps us to stay up then bring it on!

[LQ 0]

The only thing people are "crying" about is the ridiculous scenario which means that once again poor management allows a club to get away with shafting local businesses, the tax man, other major creditors etc.Why should anyone comply if there is no recourse nor penalty? Why should anyone operate ''properly'' and with propriety?And just for info, we weren''t ''saved'' recently and if the same thing did happen to us I''d be as disgusted as I am with the way SFC are exploiting the rules.

[lucky green trainers 0]

i think stuff the administrators - if they''ve found a clever loophole - i suggest the FL retrospectively rewrites the rules of their association to close the loop-hole pdq...imo it wouldn''t be in the best interest of all its members to let the saints numbers crunchers get away with this...

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]i think stuff the administrators - if they''ve found a clever loophole - i suggest the FL retrospectively rewrites the rules of their association to close the loop-hole pdq...imo it wouldn''t be in the best interest of all its members to let the saints numbers crunchers get away with this...
[/quote]

 

Retrospective rules would not hold up in a court of law.  The FL are calling in experts - no doubt the so called "forensic accountants" - because clearly they don''t feel confident enough to go ahead with a points deduction as things stand.   I suspect this will be one for the experts and the lawyers to try and sort out.

[ASBOS 0]

DEAR CO-CANARIES,I HAVENT WRITTEN BEFORE IN THIS FORUM TILL I REALISED THE ENORMOUS SCANDAL THAT TAKES PLACE IN CHAMPIONSHIP ATM. I WANT TO EXPRESS MY ANGER AND TRY TO CONVICE ALL THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES TO PUNISH AS HARD AS THEY CAN THIS DISGUSTING "CLUB" OF SAINTS ( LOL WHAT A FUNNY NAME). I HOPE THE FINAL DECISION TO BE HELPFULL FOR OUR TEAM AND WITH THE WILLING OF GOD WE LL RETURN AT OUR HOME (PREMIER LEAGUE). GREETINGS FROM THE YELLOW-GREEN HOOLIGANS OF GREECE.PS. WE WANT DARREN BACKPS2 FULLHAM WE DONT FORGETPS3 DELLIA GET YOUR FAT *&^* OUT OF HERE

[Mello Yello 2,281]

Anyone googled ''KERRISON HOLDINGS LTD''?......What''s all that about then? [:|]

[Gentleman Jim 0]

[quote user="canarychris"]

[quote user="singing canary"]have they given a time scale on this ..??[/quote]

No timescale, the Football League are just hoping that Southampton get relegated and any decision they make will therefore be irrelevant!!!

[/quote]

Spot on, why did they name a date,(today), for this inquiry then wait for a week to realise  they needed more info ?

They are simply waiting for circumstances to make the decision for them !

 

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]i think stuff the administrators - if they''ve found a clever loophole - i suggest the FL retrospectively rewrites the rules of their association to close the loop-hole pdq...imo it wouldn''t be in the best interest of all its members to let the saints numbers crunchers get away with this...[/quote]

 

Retrospective rules would not hold up in a court of law.  The FL are calling in experts - no doubt the so called "forensic accountants" - because clearly they don''t feel confident enough to go ahead with a points deduction as things stand.   I suspect this will be one for the experts and the lawyers to try and sort out.

[/quote]its a poor show if an association hasn''t got a clause in its rules that allows it to introduce retrospective legislation to cover eventualities where its best interests are compromised imo...else unforseen situations are likely to lead to fudges and farces???joking aside - i fully support the efforts of the administrators in discharging their duty - yet if the credibility of the association is called into dispute by such (outsider) actions through bending or stretching ts rules (even in good faith), then probably it can be said the minority interest is working against the interest of the majority which in my view is not healthy...

[|BA 0]

[quote user="Guy Gibsons dog"]It also shows it is not obviously black n'' white.  If they do deduct, expect appeals, nit picking and a High Court Case.[/quote].....and if they dont expect the above from whoever goes down in their place.

[Barry Brockes 145]

Why do I have this horrible feeling in my water that we''ll be the fall guys coming out of this and at the end of the season we''ll be saying ''if only Southampton had been docked those ten points''.

[plan b 0]

[quote user="Barry Brockes"]Why do I have this horrible feeling in my water that we''ll be the fall guys coming out of this and at the end of the season we''ll be saying ''if only Southampton had been docked those ten points''.[/quote]....and if thats the case then it will be sheff utd/west ham all over again. the league have really bottlled it on this one, if they deduct points off them now then soton will probably take them to court, if they dont and manage to stay up then the team taking their place going down will then go to court over it. they are really banking on them getting relegated on their own accord, if not there will be a lot of trouble ahead, who''s staying up, who''s going down etc... it''s obvious to everyone who owns s.f.c., they are in admin., give them a points reduction now 

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Gentleman Jim"][quote user="canarychris"]

[quote user="singing canary"]have they given a time scale on this ..??[/quote]

No timescale, the Football League are just hoping that Southampton get relegated and any decision they make will therefore be irrelevant!!!

[/quote]

Spot on, why did they name a date,(today), for this inquiry then wait for a week to realise  they needed more info ?

They are simply waiting for circumstances to make the decision for them !

 

 

[/quote]

 

They did not "name a date today".  Today was the normal Board meeting which happened, among other things, to discuss Southampton. 

They met today to decide on what to do.  As it is not at all clear as to what their legal standing is in the matter of points deduction they decided to call in an independent accountancy firm to look at the relationship between the "holding company" and Southampton FC so that if/when they do issue a sanction they don''t all have their arses sued off by The Administrators.

The FL have already had "formal contact" with the Joint Adminstrators long before this meeting and have been informed, along the way, that if they imposed a points deduction they could expect to have a High Court writ in return. 

The FL have taken their own legal advice ahead of today''s meeting.  And judging by the decision I would think that the legal advice was that the situation was unclear and needed clarifying.

This isn''t football you know.  It''s law - company and insolvency.  And jolly good luck with both. [:P]

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="Gentleman Jim"][quote user="canarychris"]

[quote user="singing canary"]have they given a time scale on this ..??[/quote]

No timescale, the Football League are just hoping that Southampton get relegated and any decision they make will therefore be irrelevant!!!

[/quote]

Spot on, why did they name a date,(today), for this inquiry then wait for a week to realise  they needed more info ?

They are simply waiting for circumstances to make the decision for them !

 

 

[/quote]

 

They did not "name a date today".  Today was the normal Board meeting which happened, among other things, to discuss Southampton. 

They met today to decide on what to do.  As it is not at all clear as to what their legal standing is in the matter of points deduction they decided to call in an independent accountancy firm to look at the relationship between the "holding company" and Southampton FC so that if/when they do issue a sanction they don''t all have their arses sued off by The Administrators.

The FL have already had "formal contact" with the Joint Adminstrators long before this meeting and have been informed, along the way, that if they imposed a points deduction they could expect to have a High Court writ in return. 

The FL have taken their own legal advice ahead of today''s meeting.  And judging by the decision I would think that the legal advice was that the situation was unclear and needed clarifying.

This isn''t football you know.  It''s law - company and insolvency.  And jolly good luck with both. [:P]

[/quote]

Isn''t it nice that money once again decides what the heirarchy do.  Would be nice for the FL to hold their ground and tell the Administrators to see them in court.

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Gentleman Jim"][quote user="canarychris"]

[quote user="singing canary"]have they given a time scale on this ..??[/quote]

No timescale, the Football League are just hoping that Southampton get relegated and any decision they make will therefore be irrelevant!!!

[/quote]

Spot on, why did they name a date,(today), for this inquiry then wait for a week to realise  they needed more info ?

They are simply waiting for circumstances to make the decision for them !

 

 

[/quote]

Today was the normal regular Board meeting of the FL.  The debate about Southampton took up about an hour during which they concluded they didn''t have a clue about the legal situation and voted unanimously to hire a team of forensic accountants to investigate and report back with the suggestion from the Chairman that they convene a meeting as soon as the report is received.  Unanimous vote, apparently.

Two of the lawyers on the FL board suggested it had to be an independent outside perusal of the accounts otherwise the FL might lay itself open to a legal challenge from the Joint Administrators.  Agreed unanimously.

Likely to go to a firm from Cambridge.

[ca 1]

Just listening to Rupert Lowe on Sky and he didn''t seem to confident that they would get away with no points deduction

[Whats a right winger 0]

[quote user="Barry Brockes"]Why do I have this horrible feeling in my water that we''ll be the fall guys coming out of this and at the end of the season we''ll be saying ''if only Southampton had been docked those ten points''.[/quote]

 

Don''t forget we have already been the fall guys once before. We were relegated in 84/5 when Coventry were able to play 3 games after everyone else had finished the season. The rules were then changed so all games have to be completed by the date of the final weekend of the season. Feels very much like that again 

[Crafty Canary 495]

Surely any points deduction would apply next season in any case. Wasn''t March 26 the date by which clubs had to enter administration if the deduction was to apply this season? After that date the deduction is carried forward to the following season.

[Whats a right winger 0]

Points deduction this season IF it effects promotion or relegation. If a team goes into administration after 26 March and finishes more than 10 points from the play offs or from relegation then the penalty goes forward to next year. If not it comes in this year

[Crafty Canary 495]

Thanks for clarifying that one for me.

[Camuldonum 0]

Personally I think it would be a good idea if you just pick up as many points as you can in your remaining games and stop worrying about Southampton.[:|]

[AJ 1,218]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]Personally I think it would be a good idea if you just pick up as many points as you can in your remaining games and stop worrying about Southampton.[:|][/quote]Best comment in this thread so far! We don''t need to worry about Southampton - grab as many points as we can and attain safety the proper way.

[ASBOS 0]

M8 of course our goal is to collect as many points as we can at the next games. I have no doupt that our team can easily stay at the division this year but my point is that the law must be fair enough to proove that southampton soccer team has no right to exist at the championship. All teams who brake tha law must be relagated otherwise they admit that we are just some stupid fans who believe in fair-play. I just wanna quote the words of a wise man " In an unfair game you dont have to play fair" wich means that if southampton is not punished we can also waste huge ammounts of money for transfers etc and not pay anything without being relaget because of the law. Its just not right... Although i believe that we are capable of staying at the division by our own games by winning in the field..May Cannaries prevail kisses from the yellow-green greece

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Thing is though i''m not sure what redress they would have in a court of law. Under the rules the only right of "appeal" against a 10 point penalty is for "force majeure" which would not apply here. The FL is not a public body therefore its decisions are not judicially reviewable. I can''t see what form of legal action they could actually take unless they are able to fabricate some kind of breach of contract type situation by virtue of there being a contract between the FL and its members and the Fl has somehow now acted in good faith towards one of its members?

In essence the league is a kind of private club and the administrators of that club can do what they like - this is why Sheffield United had to sue West Ham for breach of one of the contractual terms of membership of the premier league by "not acting in good faith" towards a fellow member rather than being able to take action against the premier league themselves.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

Thing is though i''m not sure what redress they would have in a court of law. Under the rules the only right of "appeal" against a 10 point penalty is for "force majeure" which would not apply here. The FL is not a public body therefore its decisions are not judicially reviewable. I can''t see what form of legal action they could actually take unless they are able to fabricate some kind of breach of contract type situation by virtue of there being a contract between the FL and its members and the Fl has somehow now acted in good faith towards one of its members?

In essence the league is a kind of private club and the administrators of that club can do what they like - this is why Sheffield United had to sue West Ham for breach of one of the contractual terms of membership of the premier league by "not acting in good faith" towards a fellow member rather than being able to take action against the premier league themselves.

[/quote]

 

I think that there''s a lot of bluff and brinksmanship going on. A lot has been made of the administrators at Southampton saying how strong they think their legal case is, but that has to be taken with a pinch of salt. They are, after all, attempting to sell a commodity, which is more valuable if any buyer thinks it will own a Championship club, rather than one in League One.

[ca 1]

Interesting articles in the papers on different people''s views, hope the FA made a decision sooner than later.

[ncfcstar 287]

[quote user="cityangel"]Interesting articles in the papers on different people''s views, hope the FA made a decision sooner than later.[/quote]Just like to point out that people keep referring to the FA sorting it out, when in fact it would be the Football League.

[Syteanric 1]

like i said earlier in the week.. by the time the football league have sat down to sort it out the season will be over and we will all be on our summer Holidays.. whether or not Southampton will be down is anyones guess.... if a points deduction is in place and they stay up then they will start in the championship with minus 10.

I personally feel the FL will do nothing, they dont want to give Southampton reason to sue perhaps by penalising them when they have no right.... yet they dont want to tread on another team (us perhaps, possibly forest or any other team in the mire) toes by not sending the saints down....

 whatever the football league do could turn out to be the wrong decision... they cant win, Southampton or any other team can... the Saints solicitor is going to know where the club stands and if they are not entitled to any punishment then the football league could be given an uncomfortable time.

now, if southampton fal to stay up this season and get relegated anyway, then the football league have won.. Saints would be down with charlton and 1 other, the championsship sides arent going to complain, the problem will have gone away...

imo nothing will be done unless southampton stay up.. which will mean squeeky bum time throughout may and June at FL HQ.

jas :)

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Looking again at the rules would have thought the FL should be able to make it stick as the rules states:

12.3.1 With effect from the 10th May 2004, if any Club shall: -
a) have a manager, receiver or administrative receiver appointed in respect of
that Club or any part of its undertaking or assets;

Saints argument is that the company in admin is the Holding Company and not the Club. But the administrator has been appointed to sell the Club so i would have thought it could be convincingly argued (leaving aside the other argument that the two are in essence one and the same such is the linkage and that SLH arguably is the Club) that an administrator has been apointed "in respect of the Club."