Wes Tender Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 This has just been published:- Championship side Southampton's parent company went into administration recently and that appears to have had a knock on affect, with Southampton FC owing AFC Bournemouth money. The Daily Echo have reported that Southampton are due to pay AFC Bournemouth a figure of around £50,000, however the amount is currently being withheld. The payment is due to the Cherries following former AFC Bournemouth youngster Matt Paterson making his tenth appearance for the Championship side. Paterson left the Cherries for Southampton in 2006 and the £50,000 payment was part of the compensation settlement agreed at the time. The paper has reported that the payment is allegedly being withheld by the Football League, with the Football League refusing to comment on payment details when contacted by the Echo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 And we owe Notts County for McGoldrick. I would suggest these two issues alone give the Football League all the ammo they need to dock us points next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windmill Arm 2 Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 And we owe Notts County for McGoldrick. I would suggest these two issues alone give the Football League all the ammo they need to dock us points next season. You been at the happy pills again Alps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Mullet Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 And we owe Notts County for McGoldrick. I would suggest these two issues alone give the Football League all the ammo they need to dock us points next season. Nope, rules are rules. You can't just go around docking points and making up rules and breaking rules because you feel someone deserves it. The PLC is in administration and therefore it would be wholly improper to favour one creditor over another by paying the £50,000 to Bournemouth. Bournemouth will get their money in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Guess this depends on who owes B'mouth the money - SLH Plc or SFC Ltd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Nope, rules are rules. You can't just go around docking points and making up rules and breaking rules because you feel someone deserves it. The PLC is in administration and therefore it would be wholly improper to favour one creditor over another by paying the £50,000 to Bournemouth. Bournemouth will get their money in the end. Bournemouth may get their money in the end or so many pence in the pound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Bournemouth may get their money in the end or so many pence in the pound. If they only get a number of pence in the pound, it'll be because the club has ceased to exist. It's a football league requirement that all football creditors are paid in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 If the League are witholding the cash, doesn't that suggest that we have actually paid it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 If the League are witholding the cash, doesn't that suggest that we have actually paid it? Based on the info in the Echo and some checks online: Paterson made his 10th LEAGUE appearance for us on the 7th of March, way before we went into Admin. Therefore, the payment would have been made to the FL to pass to Bournemouth. Once we went into Administration, the League put a hold on all out payments, hence the debt is listed as being outstanding by the Cherries whilst being held by the FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 And we owe Notts County for McGoldrick. And a smaller sum for Leon Best, I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Based on the info in the Echo and some checks online: Paterson made his 10th LEAGUE appearance for us on the 7th of March, way before we went into Admin. Therefore, the payment would have been made to the FL to pass to Bournemouth. Once we went into Administration, the League put a hold on all out payments, hence the debt is listed as being outstanding by the Cherries whilst being held by the FL. But still, we have paid it in as much it has left the club's accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 (edited) But still, we have paid it in as much it has left the club's accounts. I think there is confusion over us paying the league and the league paying us. The league distribute TV money and what have you, now I'm sure that when the Notts co stuff was going round the League said they were due to give us money but they would withhold part because we owed Notts Co. I am sure that as far as the Football League are concerned the whole shebang is in admin and they aren't giving us any of our handouts until it's cleared up. Edited 16 April, 2009 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy_Saint Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 And a smaller sum for Leon Best, I believe Did we ever get the compensation from Covnentry for him in the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 (edited) Did we ever get the compensation from Covnentry for him in the end? yes we did.It's very simple, when the league dishes out the TV money they automatically deduct from a clubs share any litigious amount owed to another club. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/sport/Notts-McGoldrick-Best-cash/article-867113-detail/article.html Edited 16 April, 2009 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Published where? I'd hope that any reputable source would know the difference between 'effect' and 'affect' and would know when to use each term appropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 16 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Published where? I'd hope that any reputable source would know the difference between 'effect' and 'affect' and would know when to use each term appropriately. Here is the link that I posted on:- http://www.bournemouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=151376 The mention of The Echo probably refers to the Bournemouth edition. Vital Football is not exactly the bastion of grammatical prowess, but equally The Echo is just as prone to those sorts of errors too. However, I suspect that in essence the story itself is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 And a smaller sum for Leon Best, I believe If we owe them money still it's been outstanding for well over a year as Best hasn't been our player in that long, this to me suggests your spouting rubish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 It could be that the money has been paid, but because a club has to pay all it's football debts in full, that Bournemouth itself has debts that need to be settled, the League is holding the money. The league stopped Thompson's loan being renewed due to some unstated financial reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 I guess that there are a number of 'in and out' payments left on our balance sheet at the moment (loans, staggered transfer fees etc.). Perhaps the FL have the authority to reconcile these on our behalf, given the situation ??? TBH I don't know this but it seems a reasonable assumption ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Bournemouth will get their money in the end. No they won't...not unless the FL have insurance policies to cover it...We owe Aviva over £20m and Barclays over £5m...we have next to no assets to pay them...Bournemouth will never see that money...just like any other small business that SLH owe money to...that's why you go into administration...to avoid paying your debts. When Leeds went into administration a woman who owned a flower shop went out of business because they owed her £X when they went under and she was right at the end of the queue...administration is a horrible business and we are only at the very beginning of the fall-out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 No they won't...not unless the FL have insurance policies to cover it...We owe Aviva over £20m and Barclays over £5m...we have next to no assets to pay them...Bournemouth will never see that money...just like any other small business that SLH owe money to...that's why you go into administration...to avoid paying your debts. When Leeds went into administration a woman who owned a flower shop went out of business because they owed her £X when they went under and she was right at the end of the queue...administration is a horrible business and we are only at the very beginning of the fall-out. If we don't pay the football debt in full we don't start next season, those is the rules. 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