Ask yourselves.........

[Thedelldays]

do we deserve the -10..?

have we been disgustingly mis-managed in the last 5 years or so..?

 

would we be happy if a rival (potentially powerful) in this league escape punishment over a possible technicality..?

 

we all know the answers dont we

 

cant see how the FL are the bad people here...we play by their rules (like everyone else does) or not at all....simple really

[skintsaint]

if I was punting 15m into the club I would investigate starting the season on level points with everyone else, no matter how wrong it is.

 

Personally I would take it on the chin, 10 points isnt much in a 46 game season...but then again it isnt my cash.

[Thedelldays]

i agree...but all the anger to the FL on here is the usual lynch mentality..we are in this position as we have been an appalling football club in recent years...simple really

[skintsaint]

I suppose its passion for the club at the end of the day, the FL were right to dock the points as we did the crafty one imo.

[for_heaven's_Saint]

do we deserve the -10..?

have we been disgustingly mis-managed in the last 5 years or so..?

 

would we be happy if a rival (potentially powerful) in this league escape punishment over a possible technicality..?

 

we all know the answers dont we

 

cant see how the FL are the bad people here...we play by their rules (like everyone else does) or not at all....simple really

 

But isn't the point that the FL are, arguably illegally, denying our right to appeal? Rather than whether we are in the right or not? If we are in fact in the wrong, then surely the Football League would just allow us to appeal.

[Thedelldays]

But isn't the point that the FL are' date=' arguably illegally, denying our right to appeal[/b']? Rather than whether we are in the right or not? If we are in fact in the wrong, then surely the Football League would just allow us to appeal.

 

how do you know this for sure...???????

[buctootim]

We deserve the -10, and should be grateful it isnt more like other clubs. Of course if I was Pinnacle I'd try and find a way to avoid it - but if they dont succeed no-one should be surprised or hard done by.

[for_heaven's_Saint]

how do you know this for sure...???????

 

ummmmmmm.... lol

[Barry the Badger]

I agree with what you say about us probably deserving the ten points, but the fact is that the league did not have a rule about parent companies going into admin.

 

If you did something that was perhaps morally wrong but you knew was not actually illegal and the police then nicked you and said they were going to retrospectively make up a law to cover what you had done, and put you away, would you feel a bit hard done by?

[um pahars]

I agree with what you say about us probably deserving the ten points, but the fact is that the league did not have a rule about parent companies going into admin.

 

If you did something that was perhaps morally wrong but you knew was not actually illegal and the police then nicked you and said they were going to retrospectively make up a law to cover what you had done, and put you away, would you feel a bit hard done by?

 

Read these (particularly the full Arbitration Panel's Findings) and you will see that they support the League's position in that the League has quite a bit of discretion when dealing with matters such as these.

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4b/ec/0,,10794~126027,00.pdf

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4c/ec/0,,10794~126028,00.pdf

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/78/3/0,,10794~888,00.pdf

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/dc/ed/0,,10794~126428,00.pdf

[voteforpedro]

do we deserve the -10..?

have we been disgustingly mis-managed in the last 5 years or so..?

 

would we be happy if a rival (potentially powerful) in this league escape punishment over a possible technicality..?

 

we all know the answers dont we

 

cant see how the FL are the bad people here...we play by their rules (like everyone else does) or not at all....simple really

 

Yes we have been badly mismanaged and in my opinion we do deserve a penalty however, technically we have 'played by their rules'. They don't seem to be sticking to these rules however and are now blackmailing us and saying we are not allowed to even appeal.

[Leslie Charteris]

We deserve the -10, No "we" don't and should be grateful it isn't more like other clubs. Why? Of course if I was Pinnacle I'd try and find a way to avoid it - but if they dont succeed no-one should be surprised or hard done by.

 

AS I've said on another thread, the people actually responsible, the buffoons that have been running the clubs in recent years, get away without any punishment at all. If they were banned from having anything at all to do with a football club I would feel better and the legal "loophole" was allowed by the Football League in the first place and seemingly encouraged. Instead of addressing the problem, which started 25 years ago, they have bottled doing anything about it for fear of upsetting the "big" clubs who are nearly all owned by plc holding companies. Instead the FL chooses to kick people like Luton and us when they are down, probably because it makes them feel big and important when, in fact, they have very little power at all.

 

If people like Pinnacle don't challenge these arbitrary and possibly illegal decisions by the FL then football will in the long run suffer. If Pinnacle choose to go this way they will have my eternal support and my undying respect, for what it's worth. Does anyone honestly think MLT would seriously jeopardise the existence of the club?

 

Rolling over and letting the FL tickle your tummy will only lead to more of the same for some other club where the players, employees and supporters will suffer, not the ones who made the mess.

End of rant!

[SFC Forever]

Having read some of the posts on other threads the answer is not so simple.

Yes we deserve the points reduction. However is there another kick in the teeth waiting in the wings? Could there be more points waiting to be added?

 

Right now I would say take the 10 points as long as there are no more to come.

[Calvin]

we do deserve it

[StAndy1970]

In truth (albeit in my humble opinion), no clubs deserve these types of deductions. Even Leeds. As has been mentioned i am sure a million times in the past, it is not the fans fault.

In some cases where owners/directors have used administration as a means of getting rid of debts so they can continue to operate under a new name, this is the only case for a posible deduction because this would indeed be a way of punishing the owners. The league say themselves 'to protect the integrity of the game' they use this route to punish old regimes, but there is another angle to this. Saints old regime have gone. We have fresh people coming in so why should they be punished. Rupert and the gang have got away with this totally. Yet this punishment still stays with the club and ultimately the new owners.

The reality of this lies with the out of touch nobodies who run the Football game itself. Back years ago, a certain Brian Clough had an almighty battle with the football authorities costing him the England job.

These suits were out of date back then. Why of why will these people not modernise. Lord Mahwinney likes to sing the praises of the FL when it suits, saying about how attendances are up and what a great product the FL is, but when it suits he forgets us the fans, as if he really cared about us, he would have given greater thought to how a points deduction would affect us.

Forget the money, all the Football clubs in this country belong to the fans and without us there would be none of the lavish lifestyles that the suits running the game would have.

No fans = NO TV Deals and NO mega buck money. Maybe they should open their eyes and look at the bigger picture

[Kenilworthy]

Who are the 'we' that might deserve the point deduction? I don't deserve it. Neither do the thousands of other Saints fans who are being penalised for something that was totally out of their control. The new people coming in don't deserve it - it was nothing to do with them either. The people that might deserve it are no longer associated with the clubt.

[Thedelldays]

we know your opinion that's all.

 

we as fans definitely dont deserve it given all we've put up with.

 

-10 doesnt punish lowe or wilde does it. what did the pinnacle group or fans do to deserve having -10? was it against the rules? no it was not.

 

the league messed up and put themselves in an impossible position. either appeals from us, or appeals from other clubs. they are a complete joke and now desperately trying to get out of that mess.

 

so no, we don't deserve it in my opinion. we also didn't deserve another moaning thread about it, but we got that too.

 

 

how am i moaning..im accepting where we are and throwing my toys out the pram at the nasty football league

[SuperMikey]

Arguing about whether we deserve it or not isn't going to help, the fact of the matter is that we've been lumbered with the points deduction. While it would certainly be beneficial to start the season on level pegging with the 23 other clubs in our division, we aren't, and I doubt the FL will change their position on that.

 

I'd much rather have the takeover completed tomorrow or Monday rather than have the deal dragged on for weeks while the FL and Pinnacle debate the decision.

[kelkel31]

thedelldays

 

being an upstanding member of the community, if you were in a position where you committed a very ha-nous crime and were almost certain of a long jail sentence, but your lawyer said he could get you off on a 'technicality' would you say no and take the long jail term?

 

we did not break the rules as they were written, i think most of us agree and understand this is the case, i dont care if its morally right or wrong, the laws of the land(and in this case the rules of the FL) are there in writing, you cannot both change the rules and apply them retro-actively!

 

also what we understand to be the conduct of the FL in that they maybe attaching terms like 'no appeal' is further in breach of the rules of the land, 'members club ' or not!

[Boris Karloff]

I don't agree with points deductions, so I don't think we deserve -10 points. The thing with going into administration is that the people responsible for getting the club in that predicament always go. So who is punished? Just the fans.

 

And as for the FL stopping us from appealing. Whose interests are they serving from doing so? I think most other FL clubs wouldn't begrudge us the right to appeal I think most fans would want all clubs to start a season on 0 points. If we broke the rules then I guess we start on -10. If the FL couldn't get the rules right in the first place, that's their fault.

[WestSaint]

If there is an opportunity of overturning the 10 points deduction then it should be pursued. How would we feel at the end of the season, If we finished either ten points off the play offs or automatic promotion and we had not followed every opportunity at this stage to do something about it. Would we not look back to today and wish that more effort had been made. IMO we have a reasonable chance of overturning the deduction if we are given the opportunity to appeal. We have no chance at all if we dont'appeal and just take the deduction. People are investing a lot of money in the club and it is not in a wish to spend more time in this league than we have to.

[eurosaint]

Forgetting the legalities for a moment, does anyone really believe that Saints gained any advantage over other teams in the league last season because of our financial situation ?

Having loaned out Rasiak, John, Skacel, Dyer and Saga because they were too expensive, means we surely weakened our position !

The minus 10 points for administration is a 'catch all' rule but is hardly fair and equitable in many individual cases, is it ???

[lordswoodsaints]

do we deserve the -10..?

have we been disgustingly mis-managed in the last 5 years or so..?

 

would we be happy if a rival (potentially powerful) in this league escape punishment over a possible technicality..?

 

we all know the answers dont we

 

cant see how the FL are the bad people here...we play by their rules (like everyone else does) or not at all....simple really

 

Murderers and paedos walk free on a regular basis don't they?

Is it because the judge takes a liking to them?...of course not,it is usually because of a technicality or a loophole.

Is it right? Probably not but that's just the way it is.....dog eat dog and all that.

If there is no way round it and we have to take the -10 points then so be it,equally if we can get away with it then all well and good,it might upset a few people but all the other clubs in the league would do exactly the same.

I certainly won't lose any sleep if we manage to wriggle out of it.

**** the rest of the league,my only concern is Southampton fc.

[Boris Karloff]

Forgetting the legalities for a moment, does anyone really believe that Saints gained any advantage over other teams in the league last season because of our financial situation ?

Having loaned out Rasiak, John, Skacel, Dyer and Saga because they were too expensive, means we surely weakened our position !

The minus 10 points for administration is a 'catch all' rule but is hardly fair and equitable in many individual cases, is it ???

 

Exactly. It would be much fairer if there was a hearing and clubs were able to prove that at least they tried to manage the club prudently. As much as everyone hates Lowe, I do believe he was trying to reduce the debt last season. I don't think the club could have done much more other than raise the white flag at the start of the season.

[Belgiansaint]

The unfair thing is that the guys on the pitch end up carrying the can for the (non) actions of those in the boardroom. RL et al will go scot-free and honest blokes who happen to play football well enough to make a living out of it and sustain their families are left in limbo.

[Fan The Flames]

Forgetting the legalities for a moment, does anyone really believe that Saints gained any advantage over other teams in the league last season because of our financial situation ?

Having loaned out Rasiak, John, Skacel, Dyer and Saga because they were too expensive, means we surely weakened our position !

The minus 10 points for administration is a 'catch all' rule but is hardly fair and equitable in many individual cases, is it ???

Exactly. It would be much fairer if there was a hearing and clubs were able to prove that at least they tried to manage the club prudently. As much as everyone hates Lowe, I do believe he was trying to reduce the debt last season. I don't think the club could have done much more other than raise the white flag at the start of the season.

 

My thoughts exactly, this is why the 'one size fits all' rule doesn't work in our case. The arguement is that we will get a sporting advantage next season with the reduced debt, however we didn't seek administration, we did not seek that advantage, we are being tried for the law of unforseen cirmcumstances. Lowe (and I dont like him) did everything possible to avoid administration he cut the club to the bone last season to the point where we had a sporting disadvantage and we got relegated because of it. We have had our punishment already.

 

The footballing authorities aren't meant to address systematic inbalances otherwise teams that get a Champions League windfall or rich sugar daddies should start on minus ten points. The law is meant to punish those that seek admin for their advantage, this has happened in the past but it is certainly not what we were doing.

 

I expect anyone who owns our club to do a much as is feasible to overturn this -10 points. If there is a technicality loophole I hope they exploit it, we dont deserve futher punishment on any grounds, legal or moral.

 

The league brought these rules in a knee jerk, altered them as a knee jerk. No time or thought was put into and the undesearving suffer. If there is a loophole it only highlights how useless the FL are, why are they so desperate to get Pinacle to sign the non appeal clause, because they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

[SaintRobbie]

I think we deserve the minus 10 points to be honest. Morally I cannot see how we should avoid it. And it stinks of Lowe underhandedness which as Mawhinney says 'undermines the spirit of the competition'.

 

BUT!

 

If the FL are running scared as their decision is open to legal challenge then they are potentially imposing an illegal penalty.

 

I would also, quite like to see Mawhinney resign for the pain he's given to clubs like Luton. If he loses this battle he may have to.

 

So I am in 2 minds. Going to be interesting this one!

[Legod Third Coming]

If there are rules and we abided by them, it matters not one hoot whether it was a technicality or not. If you obey the rules, you shouldn't get punished.

 

If you break the rules you should.

 

If the rules are wrong that is not the fault of those obeying them.

[Leslie Charteris]

If there are rules and we abided by them, it matters not one hoot whether it was a technicality or not. If you obey the rules, you shouldn't get punished.

 

If you break the rules you should.

 

If the rules are wrong that is not the fault of those obeying them.

 

Well said, and I have yet to see or hear of any evidence to show that SFC have broken any rules.

[wightman35]

Posts 24 (Lordswood Saint) and 29 (LTC) say it all really. I just hope Pinnacle don't back out rather than sign up to get the deal done. Surely a contract signed under duress when the Football League have broken their own rules (if they have) could be challenged later in the High Court; at the cost of a fortune in legal fees, though.

[Flyer]

Well said, and I have yet to see or hear of any evidence to show that SFC have broken any rules.

 

Read the FL rules, they can deduct 10 points for anything akin to a club going into admin. This clearly applies to Saints.

 

People are arguing that Saints should get off on a technicality when the rules are totally clear and have been applied correctly.

[Boris Karloff]

Read the FL rules, they can deduct 10 points for anything akin to a club going into admin. This clearly applies to Saints.

 

People are arguing that Saints should get off on a technicality when the rules are totally clear and have been applied correctly.

 

If that is the case, why are they worried about us appealing. If the rules have been applied correctly surely their attitude should be "welcome to the league, appeal if you want to".

[Leslie Charteris]

Read the FL rules, they can deduct 10 points for anything akin to a club going into admin. This clearly applies to Saints.

 

People are arguing that Saints should get off on a technicality when the rules are totally clear and have been applied correctly.

 

The "club" (i.e. SFC) has not gone into administration. That is the point. It is not a technicality, it is a point of fact. The FL argue that the two (SFC and SLH) are inextricably linked and that is also true, but, if the rules state that if the club goes into administration the points will be deducted then, fair enough, accept your medicine and move on. SFC did not go into administration, so I would contend that, legally, the FL are in the wrong. They should go away and write some proper rules, ones that stop such situations arising in the first place. A blind man could have seen this happening to a club at some point. What did the FL do to stop it? NOTHING!

 

As ye sow, so shall ye reap - seems to be an appropriate quote.

[NickG]

do we deserve the -10..?

have we been disgustingly mis-managed in the last 5 years or so..?

 

would we be happy if a rival (potentially powerful) in this league escape punishment over a possible technicality..?

 

we all know the answers dont we

 

cant see how the FL are the bad people here...we play by their rules (like everyone else does) or not at all....simple really

 

if the technicality was they didn't break any rules?

[SaintBobby]

do we deserve the -10..?

have we been disgustingly mis-managed in the last 5 years or so..?

 

would we be happy if a rival (potentially powerful) in this league escape punishment over a possible technicality..?

 

we all know the answers dont we

 

cant see how the FL are the bad people here...we play by their rules (like everyone else does) or not at all....simple really

 

You might as well ask me if I think Bobby Stokes was offside when he "scored" at 4.40pm on May 1st 1976.

 

He was. But, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

 

This isn't about just desserts, it's about fighting our corner.

Edited 21 June, 2009 by SaintBobby

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

A few points regarding Southampton Football Club and the FL's so called 'Sporting Sanctions' :

 

1- If a CCC club massively overspends but gets promoted as a result there is no sanction applied - you have in effect not only gotten away with it but you've actually been rewarded for your 'crime' .

 

2- As Stockport County FC proved last season the punishment applied depends not on the gravity of the offence but on the league position of the club upon entering administration - that's like having completely different speeding fines on the M3 compared to the M27 . I defy anybody on here to compare SFC with Stockport's case and then cogently argue this rule is just and fair .

 

3- The record shows the vast majority of our debt was incurred not in overspending on players (the intention behind this rule surely) but in financing the move to St Marys . Is it not in the best interest of the game that clubs are encouraged to invest in modernisation rather than punished for doing so ?

 

4- As others have already pointed out according to the letter of the law the football club has not entered into administration , so ergo the relevant sanction can not apply . Yes we all know SFC & SLH were in effect the same entity but that's not the point , if the FL have failed to word their regulations adequately then that's their problem not ours . If they want to change the rules then they can't do so retrospectively - that really is 'moving the goalposts' and quite improper any lawyer would argue .

[Toadhall Saint]

On moral grounds there could be a case but this all about rules & laws none of which are based on morals. Give us our day in court and let them decide - thats what they are there for afterall. Problem is the FL don't even want us to have our day in court.

[um pahars]

On moral grounds there could be a case but this all about rules & laws none of which are based on morals.

 

Evn with their rules and laws the League still have a huge amount of leeway and discretion on all matters pertaining to their own League.

 

The Arbitration Panel in the Leeds case backed this up and one snippet gives an indication that the League has every right to use its discretion:

 

 

64. Given the absolute discretion afforded to the Board in this respect by the Memorandum, Articles of Association and the Insolvency Policy and having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to a sport’s governing body, the Claimant would have failed to establish that the Board’s decision (or the League’s) to include the points Condition was a decision that no rational decision maker in their position could make.

 

 

The last part here (along with other bits throughout the ruling by the Arbitration Panel) makes it clear that the League can use its discretion to make decisions that they see are in the best interests of the League and the concept of fair play etc etc etc.

 

With precedents like this, the support of the Board and the support of the member clubs, then it would be a pretty big task to prove that the League has not made a rational decision by considering substance over form in our case.

 

It's not just a black and white legal case, there is a huge grey area within which the League has quite a bit of power, support and discretion to make rulings that are in the wider interests of the game.

[Gingeletiss]

My thoughts exactly, this is why the 'one size fits all' rule doesn't work in our case. The arguement is that we will get a sporting advantage next season with the reduced debt, however we didn't seek administration, we did not seek that advantage, we are being tried for the law of unforseen cirmcumstances. Lowe (and I dont like him) did everything possible to avoid administration he cut the club to the bone last season to the point where we had a sporting disadvantage and we got relegated because of it. We have had our punishment already.

 

The footballing authorities aren't meant to address systematic inbalances otherwise teams that get a Champions League windfall or rich sugar daddies should start on minus ten points. The law is meant to punish those that seek admin for their advantage, this has happened in the past but it is certainly not what we were doing.

 

I expect anyone who owns our club to do a much as is feasible to overturn this -10 points. If there is a technicality loophole I hope they exploit it, we dont deserve futher punishment on any grounds, legal or moral.

 

The league brought these rules in a knee jerk, altered them as a knee jerk. No time or thought was put into and the undesearving suffer. If there is a loophole it only highlights how useless the FL are, why are they so desperate to get Pinacle to sign the non appeal clause, because they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

 

Spot on post........hate the man, but agree with you on the above.

[Toadhall Saint]

Evn with their rules and laws the League still have a huge amount of leeway and discretion on all matters pertaining to their own League.

 

The Arbitration Panel in the Leeds case backed this up and one snippet gives an indication that the League has every right to use its discretion:

 

 

64. Given the absolute discretion afforded to the Board in this respect by the Memorandum, Articles of Association and the Insolvency Policy and having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to a sport’s governing body, the Claimant would have failed to establish that the Board’s decision (or the League’s) to include the points Condition was a decision that no rational decision maker in their position could make.

 

 

The last part here (along with other bits throughout the ruling by the Arbitration Panel) makes it clear that the League can use its discretion to make decisions that they see are in the best interests of the League and the concept of fair play etc etc etc.

 

With precedents like this, the support of the Board and the support of the member clubs, then it would be a pretty big task to prove that the League has not made a rational decision by considering substance over form in our case.

 

It's not just a black and white legal case, there is a huge grey area within which the League has quite a bit of power, support and discretion to make rulings that are in the wider interests of the game.

 

Then if that is the case let the courts decide - the FL from my understanding do not want to even give us our day in court eg signing away any right to appeal.

[Whitey Grandad]

Evn with their rules and laws the League still have a huge amount of leeway and discretion on all matters pertaining to their own League.

 

The Arbitration Panel in the Leeds case backed this up and one snippet gives an indication that the League has every right to use its discretion:

 

 

64. Given the absolute discretion afforded to the Board in this respect by the Memorandum, Articles of Association and the Insolvency Policy and having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to a sport’s governing body, the Claimant would have failed to establish that the Board’s decision (or the League’s) to include the points Condition was a decision that no rational decision maker in their position could make.

 

 

The last part here (along with other bits throughout the ruling by the Arbitration Panel) makes it clear that the League can use its discretion to make decisions that they see are in the best interests of the League and the concept of fair play etc etc etc.

 

With precedents like this, the support of the Board and the support of the member clubs, then it would be a pretty big task to prove that the League has not made a rational decision by considering substance over form in our case.

 

It's not just a black and white legal case, there is a huge grey area within which the League has quite a bit of power, support and discretion to make rulings that are in the wider interests of the game.

Indeed they do. However, in our case the basis for the decision was that the two entities were 'inextricably linked' and even that could not be readily determined at the time. It was Mawhinney's statement "there is an appeal mechanism and the club is free to use it" that indicates to me that this decision was more political than practical. He clearly expected us to follow that route.

[eelpie]

do we deserve the -10..?

have we been disgustingly mis-managed in the last 5 years or so..?

 

would we be happy if a rival (potentially powerful) in this league escape punishment over a possible technicality..?

 

we all know the answers dont we

 

cant see how the FL are the bad people here...we play by their rules (like everyone else does) or not at all....simple really

 

I ask myself, would we deserve the -10 points if Rupert/Barclays had taken us into administration before the deadline? No.

Do we deserve the 10 points deduction because it was after the deadline? Yes.

Because Rupert ****ed up by misunderstanding FL regulations. He gambled on a slimsy fudging of the regulations, and should have known the FL better. We are suffering this mess because of Lowe's mis-judgement.

 

(What is more, if by a miracle and the wasting of another million on lawyers and court fees, we did win our case and start next season on nil points, it would be a pyrrhic victory. The rest of the league clubs will forever vilify us, and there might be counter-appeals from the likes of Luton and Brentford or whichever club might be relegated to League 2 but for our -10 instead of us. It could all go on and on for several years -like it has for West Ham in different circumstances - and drain us of yet further resources which we cannot afford.)

 

I think morally we should accept the 10 points. I would prefer to be in League 1 with -10 points to being liquidated. Unfortunately no bidder will buy us as it stands.

Not good.

[St Matty]

I agree with what you say about us probably deserving the ten points, but the fact is that the league did not have a rule about parent companies going into admin.

 

If you did something that was perhaps morally wrong but you knew was not actually illegal and the police then nicked you and said they were going to retrospectively make up a law to cover what you had done, and put you away, would you feel a bit hard done by?

 

Did we go deliberatley into admin or was it the result of the credit crunch? A year ago banks were throwing money at business and now its nothing.

 

As far as I can see we sold every asset we owned, reduced costs immensely, closed bits of the stadium eyc and were forced to go into admin. The penalty should surely go to those clubs who abuse the rules. I canot see that we did that.

[Big Ron fan]

Is anyone certain that the stand-off with the league is about appealing over the 10 points - could it not be about a further 15 points for not coming out of admin the right way, or even just confirmation that they will grant the 'golden share' share to allow us to continue, despite not having the takeover completed on Friday?

[VectisSaint]

Is anyone certain that the stand-off with the league is about appealing over the 10 points - could it not be about a further 15 points for not coming out of admin the right way, or even just confirmation that they will grant the 'golden share' share to allow us to continue, despite not having the takeover completed on Friday?

I very much doubt the issue is the 10 points. If it was I don't think there would be an issue, Pinnacle would take the hit. Making up 10 points should not be a problem, Keegan amassed 101 points with Fulham, take 10 off that and 91 would still probably see us promoted. There is more to this that the simplistic view of appealing the 10 point penalty. In any case any appeal is also doomed to failure.

[eelpie]

Is anyone certain that the stand-off with the league is about appealing over the 10 points - could it not be about a further 15 points for not coming out of admin the right way, or even just confirmation that they will grant the 'golden share' share to allow us to continue, despite not having the takeover completed on Friday?

 

I am certain a further 15 points is part of the equation.

And The FL are making it increasingly impossible for us to get a CVA.

[s0108787]

Morally we desreve the deduction, if i supported another team lke leeds or luton i would be pretty hacked off if we managed to avoid it. However as the league stretched the rules in order to punish us i think that from a legal viewpoint we have a very good case against the deduction.

[Gingeletiss]

Why the fer-k is everyone saying we deserve it morally:mad:. We the fans, the team, the workforce, the city....we deserve no such thing. Stewpert/Wilde etc, deserve the caning. So IMHO, if we can get out of it, we should.

[Flyer]

Then if that is the case let the courts decide - the FL from my understanding do not want to even give us our day in court eg signing away any right to appeal.

 

Would you be happy for Saints to be excluded from the league and maybe have to start in the wessex league if they lose?

 

What happens if the case drags on past the end of the season and Saints would be in the playoffs without the 10 points but mid table with them?

 

They have to do it, it would be a farce otherwise.

 

Would you personally go to a court case even if you were sure you were going to win when you could just win it anyway by making the other party agree not to take it to court? No one in their right mind would do that.

[Sheff Saint]

A few points regarding Southampton Football Club and the FL's so called 'Sporting Sanctions' :

 

1- If a CCC club massively overspends but gets promoted as a result there is no sanction applied - you have in effect not only gotten away with it but you've actually been rewarded for your 'crime' .

 

2- As Stockport County FC proved last season the punishment applied depends not on the gravity of the offence but on the league position of the club upon entering administration - that's like having completely different speeding fines on the M3 compared to the M27 . I defy anybody on here to compare SFC with Stockport's case and then cogently argue this rule is just and fair .

 

3- The record shows the vast majority of our debt was incurred not in overspending on players (the intention behind this rule surely) but in financing the move to St Marys . Is it not in the best interest of the game that clubs are encouraged to invest in modernisation rather than punished for doing so ?

 

4- As others have already pointed out according to the letter of the law the football club has not entered into administration , so ergo the relevant sanction can not apply . Yes we all know SFC & SLH were in effect the same entity but that's not the point , if the FL have failed to word their regulations adequately then that's their problem not ours . If they want to change the rules then they can't do so retrospectively - that really is 'moving the goalposts' and quite improper any lawyer would argue .

 

Agree 100%. I think it is a very difficult situation. Football does not want to promote overspending, or it shouldn't. The difficulty is how do you define 'overspending'. Manchester United (through no fault of their own) are £1 billion in debt. That seems like overspending, but their turnover and assets must be massive. As you say, if we had got out of the CCC in the year we spent big, we'd probably be ok now. The stadium point is a great one, and one i've considered too.

 

There are serious, much bigger question that needs to be asked now of FIFA, UEFA, the FA and FL. I think some some big changes are required to bring Professional Football into the 21st century so it is competitive and can be enjoyed by the many, on the pitch, not in the boardrooms.