If Southampton stayed up...........

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="AJ"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

3 teams get relegated.. so if we go down along with Charlton and A N othr then we werent good enough.. we''d have no grounds of appeal as much as the other team we go down with.. move on...

jas :)

[/quote]

Totally agree Jas. At the end of the day, if you finish in the bottom three at the end of the season - you''re there because you deserve to be.
[/quote]

 

Typical little old Norwich lets just accept being screwed over attitude. If we go down because they don''t have 10 points deducted i would expect us to do everything and exhaust every legal option to try and take some kind of action.

[/quote]

We would sit by and do sod all Jim, we''re nice little old Norwich who don''t rock boats.

[/quote]

Absolutely, Wiz. Donkeycaster would be too fearful of the costs involved should we lose our case.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"]

I''ve been chewing this one over for a few days and there are a few comments that spring to mind.

Firstly, as I''m sure everyone is aware, there are two seperate legal identities involved here and it''s the holding company in administration, rather than the football club. The holding company was actually formed back in the 1990''s when the Club decided to raise capital by becoming listed and trading it''s shares on the Alternative Investment Market. It was not formed, as some have suggested, as some form of wheeze to avoid the adminstration penalty that now exists, as the holding company formation actually pre-dated the current rules.

Secondly, the Southampton comments regarding the precedent being set by Derby County previously being in Receivership and not receiving a ten point penalty are somewhat misleading. For a start, the Derby were only in Receivership for a few hours before being purchased by former directors who took over all the existing debts. Additionally, at the time this happened, although the Football League had actually approved the rule change relating to the introduction of the ten point penalty, crucially, the rule chage didn''t actually become effective until the end of that season.

Thirdly, since the ten point penalty was first introduced, the Football League rules have subsequently been amended in light of the Leeds United situation and I beleive this is the first example where a holding company has gone into Adminstration, but the Club hasn''t. The current rules probably don''t specifically cover such an event, so the Football League can''t just impose a ten point penalty on the Club as this would contravene its own rules and would certainly result in the Club taking legal action.

However, the crucial points must be, how close are the two companies to being one and the same? Can one exist without the other? Is one reliant on the other for funding or income? Barclays refused to extend the overdraft on the Holding Company, why did that Company need this cash? Was it to pay the wages of the players or to help it service it''s debt? If it was the latter, was it because the Football Club weren''t paying their debt installments to the Holding Company? There are probably many more questions like this and I honestly don''t know the answers, which is why I think the Football League are perfectly correct to instruct Forensic Accounts to review the situation before passing judgement.

Fourthly, whatever the outcome of the Southampton situation, I''d expect the Football League to clarify the rules on similar situations for future reference.

Personally, I hope Southampton are relegated for footballing reasons and if we happen to be in the remaining relegation spot, then so be it. However, that still doesn''t avoid the fact that there needs to be a proper review of Southampton''s financial position in order to determine whether or not they''ve "secured" a financial advantage as a result of their set up. If they have, this undermines the integrity of the entire Football League competition irrespective of which division they''re playing in next season and this should give rise to a penalty accordingly. Afterall, football and finance are linked and directors need to behave in a professional manner accordingly.

[/quote]

What about ''Kerrison Holdings''? Aren''t they connected to NCFC? What''s all that about then? [:|]

[GMF 736]

Kerrison Holdings Ltd are a 100% owned subsidiary of Norwich City Football Club whereas Southampton Football Club are a 100% owned subsidiary of Southampton Leisure Holdings Ltd, that''s the difference.