Southampton - Possible Points Deduction

[Noseybonk 0]

Would I be right in thinking that Saints will not be deducted points tomorrow on the basis that a precedent has already been set.

I am thinking of Derby County a few years ago. Didn''t their holding company go bust with no repercussions for the club?

Anyone know more than me on this?

[Jim Smith 2,610]

They are trying to argue that Derby set a precedent and will presumably argue that the rule refers to club rather than holding company being in admin.

As I understand it the league want to impose the penalty. In my view if they don''t all hell will break loose.

An interesting day and time for Mr Doncaster to use this influence he is supposed to have!

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Evil"]Would I be right in thinking that Saints will not be deducted points tomorrow on the basis that a precedent has already been set.

I am thinking of Derby County a few years ago. Didn''t their holding company go bust with no repercussions for the club?

Anyone know more than me on this?[/quote]Evil, there is a thread further down (Ten point penalty - a clarification) that deals with some of the issues.

[Camuldonum 0]

Mark Fry, the Administrator, said last night that if Southampton suffer a points deduction the Administrators will challenge the decision in the High Court, believing such a move to be illegal.  Lawyers have already been briefed, he said, in case a points deduction is made.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]Mark Fry, the Administrator, said last night that if Southampton suffer a points deduction the Administrators will challenge the decision in the High Court, believing such a move to be illegal.  Lawyers have already been briefed, he said, in case a points deduction is made.[/quote]

 

Frankly they can sod off. Can''t see how it can be challenged in the High Court. As with the Premier league and their failure to penalise West Ham. The Football League is not a public body so its decision can''t be judicially reviewed. It is, in essence a private mambers league and the administrators of that league can do as they see fit subject to following their own proper procedures. Presumably that is why Leeds and Luton had nowhere to go when they were penalised.

[LQ 0]

Absolutely right, Jim Smith!In addition I think the administrator shot himself in the foot with this quote on the BBC last week:"The finances are interlinked therefore the future of the club is in serious jeopardy," said administrator Mark Fry.The implications of that are obvious. The holding company is the club - without the holding company there is no club because that''s where the finances come from and go to. It''s not as if the holding co had other interests. It was simply another tier of bureaucracy and worryingly now it looks as if it may only have existed to attempt to bend the rules.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

[quote user="LQ"]Absolutely right, Jim Smith!

In addition I think the administrator shot himself in the foot with this quote on the BBC last week:

"The finances are interlinked therefore the future of the club is in serious jeopardy," said administrator Mark Fry.

The implications of that are obvious. The holding company is the club - without the holding company there is no club because that''s where the finances come from and go to. It''s not as if the holding co had other interests. It was simply another tier of bureaucracy and worryingly now it looks as if it may only have existed to attempt to bend the rules.



[/quote]

 

Everything they do and say makes it abundantly obvious that the 2 are in essence one and the same (even if legally there is a distinction). If they get away with it there will be uproar. Regardless of what you think about the way Luton/Rotherham etc have been treated the FL has at least shown itself to have some balls in these situations. I don''t think Derby is a precedent as (i) i''m pretty sure the 10 point penalty did not apply then and (ii) my understanding si they were only in admin for about 10 minutes and had finance in place connected with a new takeover which saw most of the debts paid off.

I think this is all just bluster from the administrators to try and scare the FL. Hopefully they will not fall for it.

[Noseybonk 0]

Evil, there is a thread further down (Ten point penalty - a clarification) that deals with some of the issues.

Sorry Purple. But nothing on that thread mentions the precedent I was alluding to.

[farley 0]

If they don''t give them a points deduction, then every club in the land should just set up a holding company, and run the club that way. Then no-one would get a points deduction for administration.

[Ian 1,211]

[quote user="farley"]If they don''t give them a points deduction, then every club in the land should just set up a holding company, and run the club that way. Then no-one would get a points deduction for administration.[/quote]Which would set one hell of a precedent of course!I suppose another course of action is that the FL could alter their rules in the summer, but let Soton off this season as they have not technically broken the rules, perhaps?

[Jim Smith 2,610]

For anyone in any doubt as to the linkage between the company in admin and the football club:

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/uploads/documents/oct_06/sfc_1160578207_annualreport06.pdf

[one 4 the future 0]

Saints should have there points deducted and take it on the chin for not following the rules simple as.

Shouldn''t of moved to a stadia they couldn''t afford.  

[Puzzy magnet 0]

It will be laughable if they don''t get a points deduction.

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

[quote user="Lol Morgan"]It will be laughable if they don''t get a points deduction.[/quote]It is very very unlikely that they''ll have any points deducted- in my opinion. Although of course it would greatly help us if they did

[Jim Smith 2,610]

any particular reason you think that because I think it is hugely likely that they will have points deducted and would be gobsmacked if they don''t?

[Buncey 1]

I can''t see them not getting a points deduction. Surely if the FL don''t impose a points deduction all the work over the past 10 years to try and stop administration giving clubs a boost like that of Leicester will be undone. 

[Syteanric 1]

wouldnt any deduction apply next season.. look at all the other teams that have entered administration in the past... apart from the Darlo earlier this season nearly all of thm have had their deduction the following season...

im of the opinion that by the time the FA have pulled their finger out of their arse we will all be on our summer holidays.... the points will be rolled over to next season and by then it could be too late for us or another team in the division.

b****ks to a points deduction anyway! we should have never have put ourselves in the position that we hope another team suffers just to help ourselves anyway!

jas :)

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

Does anyone know when a decision will be made- either way?

[Iwan is God 0]

I don''t think the points deduction will make any difference anyway as I think we''ll finish above them whatever. It''s Earnshaw''s Notts Forest I''m more concerned about because if he does fire them out of trouble we are down!

[Evil Monkey 52]

Just come up on SSN that the board meeting today has decided that they want an Inquiry into the full accounts of both the parent company and the football club, indicating that they''re not convinced of the separation of the two.  Lord Mawhinney wants the report back asap, but no timescale given, and a meeting will then take place to determine any action to be taken.  Likely to rumble on for a few more weeks now............ so much for their D-Day!

[Fat Barman 0]

Thanks, Jim, for the link to the 2006 Accounts of SLH PLC.As clearly stated therein - "The Company is the holding company of a group whose principal activity is the operation of a professional football club."So, the football club is the principal activity of the company...further perusal of the accounts elicits many instances of the Holding Company identifying itself as the Football Club - indeed the front cover of the annual report consists of one thing, a picture of the Southampton Club crest. Any attempt to deny that the Holding Company and Football Club are separate entities should be laughed out of the meeting. They have serious work to do to try and make a case for NOT having points deducted.Jas - the deadline of March 26th merely allows the League to use its discretion and consider holding over a points deduction until next season. They have to pro-actively choose to hold it over, or the points will automatically come off this season. The only question to be answered is, whether the Holding Company and Football Club are, in effect, one and the same.

[LQ 0]

That''s fair enough really. The FL Board are just trying to cover all the bases (that was a cliche btw!) and ensure that any decision now doesn''t result in prolonged legal action later ala Tevez.I''m sure that when the accounts are ploughed through there will be enough evidence to prove that the holding company and the club are one and the same. Did anone else read the accounts that Jim Smith linked to on here yesterday? It didn''t even mention the bit of land that is the only other thing the hlding co own! And the administrator''s admission that the accounts were "linked" won''t help SFC''s cause.

[Canary 1]

Went will the Football league announce if Southampton are being deducted points or not?

I think it will be before tonights game.

 

[Metatron 0]

Canary - see Evil Money''s post above, it might be a few weeks yet.

"It didn''t even mention the bit of land that is the only other thing the hlding co own!"

I initially read that as HIDING company rather than HOLDING company.

Though in this case they are almost one and the same thing!

[Metatron 0]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5157822,00.html

League launches Saints inquiry

Southampton''s finances to be investigated

[YankeeCanary 0]

Given the overall state of the economy along with the impact it is having on football clubs, I would hope there was enough common sense not to ask members to travel to a committee meeting to come to such a conclusion. Such a decision to launch an inquiry could have easily been reached by the conducting of a telephone conference call. 

[William Darby 0]

IMO they won''t the rules are very clear about holding companies.  I suspect if the Saints have anybody like Doncaster involved I bet Southampton have their business tucked up safe and sound.

[spudgfsh 0]

[quote user="Metatron"]http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5157822,00.html League launches Saints inquiry Southampton''s finances to be investigated[/quote]

or

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7987968.stm

[Jim Smith 2,610]

[quote user="Fat Barman"]Thanks, Jim, for the link to the 2006 Accounts of SLH PLC.

As clearly stated therein - "The Company is the holding company of a group whose principal activity is the operation of a professional football club."

So, the football club is the principal activity of the company...further perusal of the accounts elicits many instances of the Holding Company identifying itself as the Football Club - indeed the front cover of the annual report consists of one thing, a picture of the Southampton Club crest. Any attempt to deny that the Holding Company and Football Club are separate entities should be laughed out of the meeting. They have serious work to do to try and make a case for NOT having points deducted.

Jas - the deadline of March 26th merely allows the League to use its discretion and consider holding over a points deduction until next season. They have to pro-actively choose to hold it over, or the points will automatically come off this season. The only question to be answered is, whether the Holding Company and Football Club are, in effect, one and the same.
[/quote]

 

For me that annual report should give the FL everything they need to know. They make constant references to "on field activities" and even talk about the profit they have made in player trading over the course of the financial year.

I am sure the FL will have it already but just in case i might email it to them!

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]Given the overall state of the economy along with the impact it is having on football clubs, I would hope there was enough common sense not to ask members to travel to a committee meeting to come to such a conclusion. Such a decision to launch an inquiry could have easily been reached by the conducting of a telephone conference call. [/quote]

 

It was a scheduled Board meeting, not specifically convened for the Southampton matter.