Doctoroncall

1.5 weeks ago, however it doesn't change the fact it was needed to be considered (perhaps now complete) because of the whole situation with the club and current economic climate.

NO! The case against can be seen with Darlington at the moment as the administrators have reject the one and only bid for the club.

This is what has been reported in the press... Administrators trying to sell Southampton have begun drawing up contingency plans for liquidation after saying the club has only a short window to find a buyer. Talks are continuing with a number of 'serious' parties according to Begbies Traynor. These are reported to include a pair of Guernsey businessmen. The club has traditional links with the island. 'The situation is fluid,' said Mark Fry of Begbies Traynor. 'I'd like to remain confident that the club can be sold before we get right to the wire, but at the same time I do not want to get people's hopes up. We naturally hope that a sale will be achieved, but there is always the danger that none of the interested parties will make an offer.' He said he was working on 'potential contingencies' should a buyer fail to materialise.

Considering the turnover in players we've had in three seasons - something like 100 players - I don't think there has been any that could build a relationship with fans to be considered "heros"! Time to stop that trend and hope the management team are good enough to build a squad of about 25 players with the youngsters filling in when injuries hit.

I can confirm that as I know a company that deals with both clubs. RR is also despondent about the gates at Coventry (12-15k) and there was talk that he was still interested in the Saints when SLH went into admin.

If we had stayed in the Championship, we could have expected £2.9m revenue from the new television deal which starts at the beginning of next season, whilst we can expect a few hundred thousand pounds in League 1

"If Southampton do not find a buyer soon, the club may have to go into liquidation and be re-formed. In that case the rules of football require that a club drops two divisions. Saints have already been relegated to League 1, so that would mean them starting again in the Conference. The chairman of the Conference, Brian Lee, has now confirmed that they have been sounded out about the possibility of Southampton playing in their competition next season. He told the Non-League Paper, 'We haven't actually been officially approached as such, but the question has been asked.' The idea of the former Premiership club having a derby match with Salisbury City does stretch credulity. Nevertheless, it emphasises the urgency of concluding a deal for the Saints before too long." from footballeconomy.com

I think that is one reason why there is a holding company as it has additional legal powers than that of just a football club as a member of the league.

The League can say and more or less do what they please. It's a question of how far they push before a club takes action. Afterall, if we want to play in their League next season we have to bend over backwards and say yes please hence the reason other clubs have taken the hit rather than go out of the league. I'm not sure why or if Luton could not have started in the Conference though.

correct.

I expect the FL to get pressured (by other clubs) into giving us more penalty points as they have already decided the club and holding company are one of the same. As the club or in fact SLH (as it can go into liquidation) don't need a CVA then I don't know what excuse they will come up with.

I doubt the players are capable of throwing matches.

Considering their squad, McLeish is lucky to keep his job. With his career history I expect Birmingham to crash and burn! http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2007/nov/27/sport.comment4

It depends on their CVA, as it's the club that has gone into administration. If HMRC are a major creditor then it'll be a 15 point penalty. It's then a question whether the FL feel they want to us further to see if we start on less than minus ten (i.e. minus 25).

The FL are a bunch of cowboys in blazers and we know ethics and football do not mix.

Even a hint would be nice now you're left us dangling!

Why is it ridiculous? If you are a professional contracted to the club, you either submit a transfer request or get on with the situation at hand. Whichever he chooses, if he wants to carry on playing football he has to apply himself, more so if he wants to go to another club.

No reason to behave like a child himself because of others.

It does'nt mean we have to stick with Wotte who hasn't shown anything different to JP considering he had a few more players to use. As I can see many of the players leaving then a clean sweep with the coaching staff would be a good idea so the club can be rebuilt starting at the foundations.

That's what I thought until I saw the FL statement, in it was this paragragh... "In light of all this advice, the Board concluded that an administrator had been appointed in respect of the Club or part of its undertaking or assets. Accordingly, it was left with no alternative other than to invoke its 'Sporting Sanctions' regulations and apply a 10 point penalty to the Club. The other provisions of The League's insolvency policy also become effective." So I think they can do what they want and we're totally screwed with other penalties coming our way if debts are not paid in full!

Not great news... wouldn't want to wish this on any fan.

If a consortium is bidding with the intent to bring Lowe back in any capacity, then we really have hit rock bottom.

Wow, a £1m a piece! I suppose if the new owners aren't desparate and other teams are it could happen but I'll be surprised.

The name Lionel Hutz comes to mind... "Why Mr Lowe this could be the worse case of false administration since the last one"!

If that happens, we'll need a top six side just to stay in the division!!!!