Thedelldays Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 we are being dealt a harsh hand by getting a 10 point deduction.... was having a chat with a mate back in the holy land (southampton) and he thinks we are being treated unfairly as the "club" itself is NOT in admin etc.. personally, I think we deserve it and should move on..I just wonder if that is shared by many on here..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 we are being dealt a harsh hand by getting a 10 point deduction.... was having a chat with a mate back in the holy land (southampton) and he thinks we are being treated unfairly as the "club" itself is NOT in admin etc.. personally, I think we deserve it and should move on..I just wonder if that is shared by many on here..? I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 we are being dealt a harsh hand by getting a 10 point deduction.... was having a chat with a mate back in the holy land (southampton) and he thinks we are being treated unfairly as the "club" itself is NOT in admin etc.. personally, I think we deserve it and should move on..I just wonder if that is shared by many on here..? I dont think we deserve it but the FA/FL say clubs which go into administration should have 10 points deducted so thats that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewell Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Of course we deserve it as morally we are in the wrong. Legally he has a point but it is the football leagues competition and their rules and they can adjust or adopt them to suit, as they have done. We either accept it or we go and play in another league, it is as simple as that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanovski Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 wouldnt be so ****ed if west ham had the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Morally yes - FL rules no. But more than happy to move on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 MOrally its justified - we spent money we could not repay on an attempt to get promoted - when that failed and the parachute money ran out we started loosing money. When the results got worse the gates fell even more and we lost more money so its our own fault so yes we deserve -10 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbyboy Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I think we should get 10 points taken off because that's the spirit of the law. On the other hand, whatever Pinnacle's failings it is surely still WRONG of the football league to insist on "no appeals if you want your licence". That bit still sticks in the throat, blackmail really isn't right. Nobody is coming out of this at all well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aberdare Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I think we should get 10 points taken off because that's the spirit of the law. On the other hand, whatever Pinnacle's failings it is surely still WRONG of the football league to insist on "no appeals if you want your licence". That bit still sticks in the throat, blackmail really isn't right. Nobody is coming out of this at all well. Agree entirely that -10 is justified. The subsequent one is harder though, how do you word that without it reading like carte blanche immunity which would not be reasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I agree 10 points is deserved, BUT, legally it is not. It is not about what is morally correct, it is about what is legally correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aberdare Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I agree 10 points is deserved, BUT, legally it is not. It is not about what is morally correct, it is about what is legally correct. I think even that is moot. The only way SFC has been able to pay bills in the last two months is by using SLH money. SLH also owns the ground. Therefore yes SFC is not in admin and should not be deducted points, but it would by now be in administration and would have nowhere to play, and therefore it would be deducted points. The semantics to my mind are only timescales. Does anyone actually believe SFC is viable and solvent, without hiding behind SLH defaulting on the mortgage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 We probably deserve it (not us fans) but if there is a loophole to exploit then I am more than delighted that it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webby Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 We are in such a mess I think we do deserve it. Whether it's justified legally is another matter. If it teaches us a lesson then all well and good. NEVER AGAIN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I agree 10 points is deserved, BUT, legally it is not. It is not about what is morally correct, it is about what is legally correct. theres one nail hit square on the head. The law has precisely f**kall to do with morality, its a set of rules which our system decrees will be applied regardless of the "spirit" of the law, which is why so many criminals walk free on a legal technicality. M**hi**ey made much of the point that SLH had been deliberately set up in such a way as to bypass the administration route but never said why it was in breach of the rules the FL had laid down. btw, hes a c**t :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 even though SLH and SFC are two seperate companies...i would agree that SLH going into admin means the Club is punished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I agree 10 points is deserved, BUT, legally it is not. It is not about what is morally correct, it is about what is legally correct. No it isn't because this isn't, wasn't and never will be about "law". It's a members club, and they've done nothing illegal whatsover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 we are being dealt a harsh hand by getting a 10 point deduction.... was having a chat with a mate back in the holy land (southampton) and he thinks we are being treated unfairly as the "club" itself is NOT in admin etc.. personally, I think we deserve it and should move on..I just wonder if that is shared by many on here..? I agree with you TDD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aberdare Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 theres one nail hit square on the head. The law has precisely f**kall to do with morality, its a set of rules which our system decrees will be applied regardless of the "spirit" of the law, which is why so many criminals walk free on a legal technicality. M**hi**ey made much of the point that SLH had been deliberately set up in such a way as to bypass the administration route but never said why it was in breach of the rules the FL had laid down. btw, hes a c**t :mad: So you think that even if SLH is liquidated SFC is solvent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 No it isn't because this isn't, wasn't and never will be about "law". It's a members club, and they've done nothing illegal whatsover. Even members clubs have to abide by basic English Law though, including corporate law??!! If this was taken to the HOL as a Civil case (which is what the FL are scared of), under the rules set out by the FL they would be liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 On the other hand, whatever Pinnacle's failings it is surely still WRONG of the football league to insist on "no appeals if you want your licence". That bit still sticks in the throat, blackmail really isn't right. The blackmail thing works both ways. You have to look at it from the League's point of view. They are looking at a club wanting to join (or remain involved)saying they want to particpate in the league competition but at the same time drag that league through the courts for at least the next nine months. That would put the whole competition up in the air for a season including delaying the playing of the play off matches and even the fixtures for the following season. As well as p*ssing off the other 23 clubs in the division. Which could then lead to more lawsuits. And so on. Blackmail goes both ways - its a bit like Saints signing a player who is also suing the club for an injury sustained at the hands of a Saints player the previous season, the player suggesting he won't pursue the case, but serves a writ on his first day at Staplewood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I agree, i have always thought we should take the ten points and move on!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Even members clubs have to abide by basic English Law though, including corporate law??!! If this was taken to the HOL as a Civil case (which is what the FL are scared of), under the rules set out by the FL they would be liable. have the FL said we cant appeal...or is i just from pinnacle...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 So you think that even if SLH is liquidated SFC is solvent? Right now, yes. If the club has to pay another months wages without bringing money in from season tickets etc then no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Right now, yes. If the club has to pay another months wages without bringing money in from season tickets etc then no. if that is the case...then why the hell are we in administration and not cracking on and looking at bringing in players etc etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TijuanaTim Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 we are being dealt a harsh hand by getting a 10 point deduction.... was having a chat with a mate back in the holy land (southampton) and he thinks we are being treated unfairly as the "club" itself is NOT in admin etc.. personally, I think we deserve it and should move on..I just wonder if that is shared by many on here..? See both sides and tbf we're gonna lose ten FFS....but as a Saint, like the rest of you, I just don't want us too....so fight as we can and then move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Even members clubs have to abide by basic English Law though, including corporate law??!! If this was taken to the HOL as a Civil case (which is what the FL are scared of), under the rules set out by the FL they would be liable. Liable for what? "Basic English law" doesn't stretch to football clubs having a right to play in a particular competition. The league haven't done anything illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Morally those that put the club in this position should be punished. Unfortunately the FL rules do not do this. They punish those who are left to pick up the pieces, the supporters, the staff, the players, while those who are culpible walk away without even a ban from future footballing activities. That is what is morally unjust. We (we being the supportersm the players, the staff) did not cheat. Those in charge of the finances attempted to cheat (although we were in a somewhat different position to some others because we were hit hard by the unexpected loss of income when we were relegated from the PL). Whether you think that it is Lowe, Wilde, Hone, Crouch or a combination of them that cheated, is irrelevant. With the exception of Leon none of them are greatly impacted, other than a paper loss on their shares. To "punish" a club that has already been punished (by relegation for instance) is morally unjust, and to kick a man (in this case a football club) when it is down is moreally unjust. But the FL are a morally bankrupt bunch of individuals headed up by a former minister in a morally bankrupt Tory administration so what do you expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Morally those that put the club in this position should be punished. Unfortunately the FL rules do not do this. They punish those who are left to pick up the pieces, the supporters, the staff, the players, while those who are culpible walk away without even a ban from future footballing activities. That is what is morally unjust. We (we being the supportersm the players, the staff) did not cheat. Those in charge of the finances attempted to cheat (although we were in a somewhat different position to some others because we were hit hard by the unexpected loss of income when we were relegated from the PL). Whether you think that it is Lowe, Wilde, Hone, Crouch or a combination of them that cheated, is irrelevant. With the exception of Leon none of them are greatly impacted, other than a paper loss on their shares. To "punish" a club that has already been punished (by relegation for instance) is morally unjust, and to kick a man (in this case a football club) when it is down is moreally unjust. But the FL are a morally bankrupt bunch of individuals headed up by a former minister in a morally bankrupt Tory administration so what do you expect. the FL state that it is the CLUB that will gain the advantage over the other 23 hence the reason why the CLUB is punished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I expected a 10-point deduction and wasn't surprised when we got it. I reckon we'd be on shaky ground any way you look at it if we tried to get that deduction rescinded. That said, the way the League acted was pretty poor - I'm not thinking of the past couple of weeks, but when they first sent in the accountants to look at the books, the way it was announced and so forth. But that's no more than a minor point. Like most others I imagine, I'll be mightily happy and relieved if we start in League One next season with a 10-point penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aberdare Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Even members clubs have to abide by basic English Law though, including corporate law??!! If this was taken to the HOL as a Civil case (which is what the FL are scared of), under the rules set out by the FL they would be liable. Really? If the two companies are entirely distinct both should be able to trade independently. Were they entirely distinct I suspect the learned Lords might agree with you. I don't suppose anyone at the FL is even losing sleep let alone scared. A football club needs a ground. It need not own that ground it might rent it. Could SFC pay it's rent at a full market rate which allowed the landlord to trade, and still itself trade solvently? Very hard to see how without the club benefitting from walking away effectively from the true cost of SMS. If SFC is solvent, the simple answer would of course be simply for SFC to take over the mortgage to Aviva from SLH, Aviva would be delighted I am sure. The fact is we all know that the football operation at Saints regardless of corporate entity cannot pay it's bills and cannot afford to service that level of debt. Everything else is wishful thinking hoping that Lowe might have actually engineered something clever. It is possible that SFC might win a case suggesting that the initial -10 was technically incorrect. How many days do you think it would be before SFC then entered administration when no funding was available from SLH and the rent needed to be paid. Where would the players be training, where would the administrative staff be located? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 (edited) Morally those that put the club in this position should be punished. Unfortunately the FL rules do not do this. They punish those who are left to pick up the pieces, the supporters, the staff, the players, while those who are culpible walk away without even a ban from future footballing activities. That is what is morally unjust. We (we being the supportersm the players, the staff) did not cheat. Those in charge of the finances attempted to cheat (although we were in a somewhat different position to some others because we were hit hard by the unexpected loss of income when we were relegated from the PL). Whether you think that it is Lowe, Wilde, Hone, Crouch or a combination of them that cheated, is irrelevant. With the exception of Leon none of them are greatly impacted, other than a paper loss on their shares. To "punish" a club that has already been punished (by relegation for instance) is morally unjust, and to kick a man (in this case a football club) when it is down is moreally unjust. But the FL are a morally bankrupt bunch of individuals headed up by a former minister in a morally bankrupt Tory administration so what do you expect. ....and the "kick a man when he's down" argument demonstrates the fundamental misunderstanding of why the 10 point punishment exists. Clubs living beyond their means and then kicking all their debts into the long grass to start again gain a sporting advantage over clubs that don't. That's what Leicester did when they binned their debts on relegation and scooted straight back into the Premier League debt free. That's called cheating. If we do survive, and I still think we will, we will have a massively reduced debt on the stadium, if not none at all. That's a sporting advantage, and that is what is corrected by the 10 points. And the players fans etc will benefit from that sporting advantage next season and onwards. If anything is "morally corrupt" its football clubs ****ing money up the wall and then sticking two fingers up at their local office suppliers, food suppliers, casual staff, painters/decorators, site maintainence contractors, St Johns Ambulance etc etc by giving them 5p in the pound for their goods. Or do you think that kind of thing should be encouraged in football? Maybe ten bonus points? Maybe a bonus point for every local business you screw over by going into admin? After all, why kick people when they're down? Edited 1 July, 2009 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 The 10 point penalty is correct. In a way I wished we had not tried to recoup money squandered in the past by slashing the wage bill this season and having this admin issue while in the CCC. I suppose the penalty is hard to take because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aberdare Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Right now, yes. If the club has to pay another months wages without bringing money in from season tickets etc then no. It is alleged that the only way the SFC wages were paid in May was Pinnacle paying SLH for exclusivity, the inter company debt between SLH and SFC consequently grew. If SLH are liquidated, that debt will be repayable on demand to the liquidator, and the club will additionally either need to make an offer to purchase SMS (as per domestic reposession) or move elsewhere. Where would that money come from? 15k STHs (let's be optimistic) at say 400 (ave, net of VAT) produces 6m. That money has also to last 12 months to cover payroll, rent/mortgage/running costs. I find it hard to see it stretching to include repayment of all holding company loans, let alone player acquisition. Like it or not, unless someone is going to invest cash, SFC is currently insolvent. It is to be hoped that with sufficient inward investment it can trade out of that situation, but the real money from trading will only come when the club is tiptoeing in or around a return to the Premier League, in the short term therefore solvency is likely to become a greater rather than lesser issue, and will need white knight financing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildgoose Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I also agree with the OP. It's further points deductions which I think start to nail any club to the floor......kicking them when they are down. There has to be a better way, and that's why the League are apparrently looking to do things differently in the near future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I do think that we should accept -10 and move on, mainly because we will never win against a bunch of suits who are chock full of their own self importance ! However, I am not in favour of their 'one size fits all' penalty for administration. The Leicester example is a good one as to why you should be punished but in other cases (including Saints) you can bend over backwards to minimise your difficulties (often caused as a direct result of relegation) by lending out star players etc.. to rival teams and gain no advantage at all ! I don't see how -10 gives the same penalty to Saints and Stockport either, they stay where they are, we start next season with a deficit ! In effect I am saying that the FL rule could be much better if applied to individual cases rather thanbeing automatic ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I don't think we deserve it - I don't think most of the other clubs that have had it imposed on them deserved it either for that matter (Leeds Utd excepted obviously) . I consider it deeply flawed both in principle and practice and I have zero confidence in the FL's ability to administer in a fair and just manner . I can only say all those on here citing 'morality' as a justification for us accepting this sanction must be employing a completely new and novel definition of that word compared to the one I left school with many , many years ago . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wightman35 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I agree completely with TDD on this one. Of course if Barclays or Rupert had had the good sense to pull the plug out a week earlier, we would have had the points off last season- relegation anyway- and the baby would not have been chucked out with the bathwater. Ah! the joys of hindsight. For heavens sake accept the -10 and buy the Club; if you really do have THE MONEY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I am finding Andy Roddick's shorts more interesting than this football club at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny c Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 wouldnt be so ****ed if west ham had the same oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wightman35 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I don't think we deserve it - I don't think most of the other clubs that have had it imposed on them deserved it. This is imo true on a legal level, but I get the impression that football authorities live in a world where they make up rules to suit themselves. We are being treated to the same "rationale" that Sheff Utd were a couple of years ago, when WHU did not get -10. I still find it hard to distinguish SFC from SLH in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 we are being dealt a harsh hand by getting a 10 point deduction.... was having a chat with a mate back in the holy land (southampton) and he thinks we are being treated unfairly as the "club" itself is NOT in admin etc.. personally, I think we deserve it and should move on..I just wonder if that is shared by many on here..? Agreed. Everyone knew the rules. I'm not anti or pro Rupert but do think he and the lawyers were negligent in believing they could make the FA view SLH totally separate to SFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Of course we deserve it as morally we are in the wrong. Legally he has a point but it is the football leagues competition and their rules and they can adjust or adopt them to suit, as they have done. We either accept it or we go and play in another league, it is as simple as that! Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navysaint Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Did any one else get an email from the Football League today?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(not THE) Kevin Moore Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I think that if the league were to stop d1ckheads taking over football clubs, or once they were there to actually put safeguards in place to protect the fans of the club from those d1ckheads then we wouldn't have to have this 10 point deduction. Most fans don't want the club to over-reach (they might demand signings because they think we have money but not if they knew for sure there was none) it's the board that makes those decisions. In our case we've had a deeply unpopular board of directors (rightly or wrongly, am not going to debate the why's and wherefores on that particular point) that the fans have been powerless to remove and the league has done.... nothing. Then the board ****s up, we run out of money and the board walk away, admittedly having lost a sizeable sum, otherwise they don't get any kind of official punishment... so what then happens is suddenly the league swoop into action to make sure that the fans are then punished again for allowing the d1ckheads to overspend and ruin the club... What kind of a deterrent is that? It's like saying 'don't murder anyone or we'll execute someone else as a punishment' To claim that we benefitted from an unfair advantage is also a joke, since we p1ssed our money up against the wall on rubbish players anyway. I have nothing but contempt for Mawhinney and his chums. you or I had no say in who we signed or how much we spent on wages and yet it is you and I who have been made to pay the consequences. It's an ill-conceived and ill-thought out penalty put in place by a bunch of incompetents (and also inconsistent, why did Stockport county not have their 10 points deducted next season instead of this when it had no impact on them?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I think that if the league were to stop d1ckheads taking over football clubs, or once they were there to actually put safeguards in place to protect the fans of the club from those d1ckheads then we wouldn't have to have this 10 point deduction. Most fans don't want the club to over-reach (they might demand signings because they think we have money but not if they knew for sure there was none) it's the board that makes those decisions. In our case we've had a deeply unpopular board of directors (rightly or wrongly, am not going to debate the why's and wherefores on that particular point) that the fans have been powerless to remove and the league has done.... nothing. Then the board ****s up, we run out of money and the board walk away, admittedly having lost a sizeable sum, otherwise they don't get any kind of official punishment... so what then happens is suddenly the league swoop into action to make sure that the fans are then punished again for allowing the d1ckheads to overspend and ruin the club... What kind of a deterrent is that? It's like saying 'don't murder anyone or we'll execute someone else as a punishment' To claim that we benefitted from an unfair advantage is also a joke, since we p1ssed our money up against the wall on rubbish players anyway. I have nothing but contempt for Mawhinney and his chums. you or I had no say in who we signed or how much we spent on wages and yet it is you and I who have been made to pay the consequences. It's an ill-conceived and ill-thought out penalty put in place by a bunch of incompetents (and also inconsistent, why did Stockport county not have their 10 points deducted next season instead of this when it had no impact on them?). A very good post,one i very much agree with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 So you think that even if SLH is liquidated SFC is solvent? Doesnt matter, thats not the point. The question is do the FL rules say we should be docked points, and the lawyers seem to think they dont. It strikes me that if its true that the FL wanted Pinnacle to sign a waiver on any appeal before allowing the takeover, they must have known they were on very shaky legal ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 we are being dealt a harsh hand by getting a 10 point deduction.... was having a chat with a mate back in the holy land (southampton) and he thinks we are being treated unfairly as the "club" itself is NOT in admin etc.. personally, I think we deserve it and should move on..I just wonder if that is shared by many on here..? I think it's fair enough some days, and other times I'm pretty much incredulous that they can apparently just make up the rules as they go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now