Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Camuldonum

Southampton Administrators all set to take on the Football League

Recommended Posts

But it''s a very interesting situation.  It is no longer for the football club to decide anything - whether to "take their punishment" or not.  They can''t take ANY decisions about this at all.  That is a decision for the Administrators and they are an outside professional firm who are also insolvency experts.  It wouldn''t surprise me if this ends up in the High Court in which case it could go on for a very long time.

That will be a riveting read - a High Court battle between two different sets of accountants.[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"]

But it''s a very interesting situation.  It is no longer for the football club to decide anything - whether to "take their punishment" or not.  They can''t take ANY decisions about this at all.  That is a decision for the Administrators and they are an outside professional firm who are also insolvency experts.  It wouldn''t surprise me if this ends up in the High Court in which case it could go on for a very long time.

That will be a riveting read - a High Court battle between two different sets of accountants.[;)]

[/quote]What I haven''t seen mentioned is what will actually happen regards the 10-point penalty if the administrators do try and take it to the High Court. Presumably, the Football League will definitely relegate them this season, and if the penalty is deemed unlawful at a later date, what happens? Do they get large amounts of compensation? Surely they can''t possibly be reinstated to the Championship? Or will the League suspend the penalty until another season... (can''t see that happening either)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interestingly (bearing in mind what the Saints fan who came on here being all defensive a few weeks back) Leon Crouch has just said on Five Live that the holding company was deliberately set up to avoid sanctions against the club itself! Something I and others were suggesting but that was being disputed by Southampton at the time.For a director of a football club he really didn''t seem to understand the implications of what he admitted to on national radio!Stunning naivety...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We all know how slowly the law moves so it is likely to take a long time before any appeal is heard - in the meantime I should think the deduction stands and they are definitely relegated. If the decision is overturned then I presume they would be financially compensated (similiar to Sheff Utd recently). I doubt it will be though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as i understand, its not a god-given right to be able to play in the Football League anyway.

If you are deemed to have broken their rules, i''m sure they (the Football League) have the power to exclude who they want to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They brought it on themselves it appears they did not cooperate withthe league enquiry as well. any appeal has  no chance i always thought they would lose 10 points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="I.S."][quote user="Camuldonum"]

But it''s a very interesting situation.  It is no longer for the football club to decide anything - whether to "take their punishment" or not.  They can''t take ANY decisions about this at all.  That is a decision for the Administrators and they are an outside professional firm who are also insolvency experts.  It wouldn''t surprise me if this ends up in the High Court in which case it could go on for a very long time.

That will be a riveting read - a High Court battle between two different sets of accountants.[;)]

[/quote]

What I haven''t seen mentioned is what will actually happen regards the 10-point penalty if the administrators do try and take it to the High Court. Presumably, the Football League will definitely relegate them this season, and if the penalty is deemed unlawful at a later date, what happens? Do they get large amounts of compensation? Surely they can''t possibly be reinstated to the Championship? Or will the League suspend the penalty until another season... (can''t see that happening either)?
[/quote]

Very good question to which I don''t know the answer.  My bet is it stands at the moment pending an appeal if they lodge one.  The possible complication could come if the FL hear an appeal and again reject the Southampton argument.  At that point they can, in law, take it out of purely "football rules" and go to the High Court with it.  When the story of a points deduction first broke the Administrators claimed that they are prepared to do that.  Whether it was bluster no one can say.

The reason I say this is the very carefully worded (and very "legal" statement issued). You can see a possible "outside football" claim that the accountants appointed by the FL overstepped their remit in their report to the FL and that their report of withdrawal of co-operation flawed. 

I have run this past a friend who is an insolvency lawyer (I''m afraid we met because of our model railways[+o(] and his comment was: "Well, if they are going to claim that the appointed independent accountants report overstepped the mark or ventured outside their remit and inaccurately influenced the Football League on their decision that is certainly something you could challenge."

The Administrators statement is not a football club statement.  That is an insolvency/legal statement.

Hopefully it might be sorted at a football level.  If not, think of people pouring over All England Law Reports late at night and at weekends (heaven forbid!) - all of which comes at a price.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always thought whatever decision the league made they would be in a sticky situation and would probably end up in court. Of course they have deducted Southampton the points (and rightly so in my opinion) and as I expected they are appealing it and as people have mentioned will probably end up being a court case. But ofcourse if they diddnt deduct Southampton the points then Luton and Leeds would be straight on their cases and they will then also want some compensation and it will be west ham sheffield united all over again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely the quote from Leon Crouch throws any doubt (or appeal) in the large receptacle in the corner marked ''trash''?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"]

I have run this past a friend who is an insolvency lawyer (I''m afraid we met because of our model railways[+o(] and his comment was: "Well, if they are going to claim that the appointed independent accountants report overstepped the mark or ventured outside their remit and inaccurately influenced the Football League on their decision that is certainly something you could challenge."

The Administrators statement is not a football club statement.  That is an insolvency/legal statement.

Hopefully it might be sorted at a football level.  If not, think of people pouring over All England Law Reports late at night and at weekends (heaven forbid!) - all of which comes at a price.

 

  [/quote]

"I have run this past a friend who is an insolvency lawyer (I''m afraid

we met because of our model railways[+o(] and his comment was: "Well,

if they are going to claim that the appointed independent accountants

report overstepped the mark or ventured outside their remit and

inaccurately influenced the Football League on their decision that is

certainly something you could challenge."

Which gives Soton possible cause for action against these accountants but still no cause of action against the Football League. With no cause for action against the FL the club have no serious prospect of getting past a preliminary hearing at best and I would expect any case brought by Soton against the FL to be struck out at the earliest if it centres on a complaint against the actions of the administrators/accountants. That''s how the law works, if Soton have a gripe against the accountants then they should take them to Court for compo, they haven''t a chance if they take the FL on IMO, it''s a well established legal principle.The Administrators statement is not a football club statement.  That is an insolvency/legal statement.Vindicated! I think you knew this all along, as you have provided the ''question'' and the ''answer'' in the same post. Just read this sentence again then read what I say about ''cause for action''.Hopefully it might be sorted at a football level.  If not, think of

people pouring over All England Law Reports late at night and at

weekends (heaven forbid!) - all of which comes at a price.
It has to be or we''ll be seeing ''out of football'' litigation for bad refereeing decisions before you know it.How much could we claim in compo in a personal claim against AJ for the Palace penalty that never was which contributed to our relegation from the Prem last time around?You can see the Man Utd, Chavski and Arsenal Lawyers getting very busy if they could raise ''out of football'' claims based entirely on business losses every time they fail in a tournament and the linesman has his flag up when tv replays clearly show the player was onside, what''s the value of missing out on a run in the ''European Champions, Runners up, and third and fourth placed Champions Cup Euro mini League'' or whatever it''s called nowadays.In a game dominated by big business it''s pretty likely ''Out of football litigation'' will destroy the game at some stage, there''s too much to be lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that some posters on here, as it applies to matters of a legal nature and certainly subject to appeal, may not know the difference between a) using the written word to express an opinion as opposed to b) listening to input ( in some cases verbal ) from the parties involved and then writing and drawing conclusions as to what the legal ramifications are of what was said. The first point is fair game for all of us. The second, I would suggest, would be an area the moderators would rather we did not engage in. Just my opinion of course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have I missed something Yankee, the trial, the judgment, the appeal maybe?As it stands there has been a Football League decision and now Southampton are having a bit of a blub that is all. The threat of litigation against the Football League is as empty as the Southampton Leisure current account.If they do take the FL to Court for the reason(s) Cam outlines then I guarantee the case will not progress far at all. In this Country we have a set of rules governing civil litigation (Civil Procedure Rules) which very clearly set out how litigation must be approached.If C makes a decision about A based on information supplied by B and A feels the wrong decision has been made because B has furnished incorrect information then A does have recourse through litigation but against B NOT C and since B and C are independent there can be no joint action. Of course if the information supplied by B is damaging to A yet accurate then A would be very foolish to take the matter to the Courts anyway.I really cannot see how explaining one of the most basic fundamentals of the British Legal system can possibly be cause for a complaint to the Mods. As it stands there are no legal proceedings  underway and if you read my explanation of CPR and add to that the information in LQ''s post I think it''s clear to everyone that any litigation invoked by Soton would be doomed to failure and thus it''s highly unlikely any such action would ever be brought. If it were then if Cam asks the FL to contact me I could write them a killer defence in about 10 minutes flat (for a large fee of course) and gain a strikeout under CPR, so I don''t think the FL Lawyers will be particularly perturbed in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now the the fl have given sotons admins the finger - its gotta be game over hasn''t it???to persue litigation in these circumstances would be costly and risky - and therefore outside the natural instinct and remit of insolvency administrators imo[;)]as i suggested before - maybe the FL should look to change their rules to allow for retrospective judgments in such matters - where clearly by hook or by crook loopholes in their governing rules come to light or are exploited - by ruthless administrators[:P]!!!or - rather like speeding tickets - either take the medicine - or run the risk of heavier fines/costs if appealed against...[:''(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether legally right or not is was the right decision.   With the holding company apparently only a front for the stadium and club as legal entities with no  income of its own then the 3 are inextricably linked.

Firstly to not give a penalty would mean that the FL would need to vote in a change to the rules to cover parent companies or face every club in the land passing ownership over to an holding compnay to avoid this very punishment.

Secondly Luton received a penalty last season when it was THEIR holding company broke the FL rules.  I understand it was the holding company that did the dodgy transfer deals,  not the legal entity known as LTFC,  but the club received a 10 pt penalty ''on the pitch''  for their actions that was part of their -37 start to  this season.  So there is a precedent linking penalties for a club in the league and the actions of a holding company.

At least the FL had the bottle to fight it and be consistent,  and I think deserve some praise for the way they have gone about this.   If the premier league had the same gumption then wets sham would have had a points penalty for the tevez affair and the blades compensation argument would never have got off the ground. 

I do think that the punishment should stand until proven unlawful with cmpnesation being the right redress if they escape on a legal loophole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will have looked very closel;y at this before making the decision and IMHO the wording of the rule allows some wriggle room - does not say adminstrator called in in respect of the club is says something along the lines of in connection with the club or its undertaking.

Short point is Sanits can blub all they like about appealing but i don''t think they have anywhere to go. league rules expressly only allow an appeal in the case of where insolvency event has been caused through "force majeure" i.e. an act of god or events totally beyond their control. This is the ONLY grounds of appeal.

As for taking it to the courts the FL is not a public body so its decisions cannot be challenged/quashed through judicial review. The only thing i can think of is they would have to cinjure up some argument that there has been a breach of contract by the FL or something but don''t see how they can do it. As Sheffield United found with the PL and Leed and others have found with the FL there is very little they can do. These leagues are essentially a private members club and the rulers of that clubs can do as they see fit subject to following their own internal procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]In a game dominated by big business it''s pretty likely ''Out of football

litigation'' will destroy the game at some stage, there''s too much to be

lost.[/quote]Surely the moment one of these cases comes before a judge, he or she will have the common sense to dismiss it, as doing anything else would create exactly the precedent you fear ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll alert...

 

Anyone notice the line that constant changes of the board was a significant reason for their administration???

 

Touch paper lit and rapidly running for cover...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]In a game dominated by big business it''s pretty likely ''Out of football

litigation'' will destroy the game at some stage, there''s too much to be

lost.[/quote]Surely the moment one of these cases comes before a judge, he or she will have the common sense to dismiss it, as doing anything else would create exactly the precedent you fear ?[/quote]In Court ''Legally correct'' will beat ''common sense'' every time unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...