Similar situation ??

[eurosaint]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8004664.stm

 

If I read this correctly there are parallels between us and WHU.

It seems that their holding company is already in administration but I have not heard of any 'forensic' investigation or talk of docking points !

I realise that the PL is different to the FL but if there is a comparison perhaps it could help our case by way of precedent ????

[JustMike]

yes, west ham get away with everything, just look at the Tevez affair.

[Badger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8004664.stm

 

If I read this correctly there are parallels between us and WHU.

It seems that their holding company is already in administration but I have not heard of any 'forensic' investigation or talk of docking points !

I realise that the PL is different to the FL but if there is a comparison perhaps it could help our case by way of precedent ????

 

I think there is a significant difference in that the parent company owning West Ham have gone into administration due to being dragged there by other subsidiaries ie banks or whatever.

 

SLH on the other hand are perhaps more reliant on the football part of the business.

[Doctoroncall]

yes, west ham get away with everything, just look at the Tevez affair.

 

So the £5.5m fine, £25m compensation through the courts to the blades and another FA investigation is getting away with everything... lol

[um pahars]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8004664.stm

 

If I read this correctly there are parallels between us and WHU.

It seems that their holding company is already in administration but I have not heard of any 'forensic' investigation or talk of docking points !

I realise that the PL is different to the FL but if there is a comparison perhaps it could help our case by way of precedent ????

 

Similar, and yet different at the same time.

 

Similar in that it is indeed the holding company that is in Administration and the seperate legal entity, being the football club, still trading as normal.

 

The difference is that their football club is fairly solvent, raking in £50m+ each season, whilst I don't know how we as a football club have avoided administration as well.

[SaintRobbie]

Similar, and yet different at the same time.

 

Similar in that it is indeed the holding company that is in Administration and the seperate legal entity, being the football club, still trading as normal.

 

The difference is that their football club is fairly solvent, raking in £50m+ each season, whilst I don't know how we as a football club have avoided administration as well.

 

But the football clubs income is irrelevant in how the business is set up.

 

Didnt West Ham get punished over Tevez et al by Sheffield Utd's successful private prosecution!? (To the tune of £30m?). Perhaps that's what we should watch for if we stay up and say Forest or Barnsley relegate instead?

[SaintRobbie]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4251026.Football_League_says_Saints_will_not_be_deducted_points/?action=complain&cid=7619253

 

I'm still intruiged by the Derby example.

 

'He [a Saints rep] said: “Let’s be very clear, if the club goes into administration the club will be deducted 10 points.

 

“But if the holding company goes into administration then they won’t be.”

 

“The league rules are very specific, it has to be the club which goes into administration for points to be deducted.

 

“At the end of the day the Football League applies it’s rules and they specifically state it is the club that has to go into administration before points are deducted.”

 

Derby County provided the precedent which has seen Saints avoid a 10-point deduction for their parent company going into administration.

 

Back in October 2003, when ex-Saints boss George Burley was in charge at Pride Park, the Rams' parent company Derby County PLC were taken into receivership by the Co-op bank with debts of around £30m.

 

But Derby County Football Club, a seperate organisation under the umbrella of the Derby County PLC company, were not taken into administration and had no points deduction.

 

Within minutes of Derby County Ltd going into receivership, a consortium took over from them and that company ceased to exist. '

 

Although this is interesting:

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/samgreen/blog/2009/04/07/football_league_must_deduct_10_points_from_southampton

 

'Southampton are trying to exploit a loophole, plain and simple. That cannot be allowed.

 

It is argued that clubs should not be punished if their parent company gets into trouble because of its other business interests. Southampton Leisure Holdings does not have any other business interests.

 

It has also been argued that a precedent was set by Derby County, who were not deducted 10 points when their parent company went into administration in 2003. But the 10-point rule did not come into effect until the 2004-05 season, so that route is also closed.'

[Deanovski]

the financial advisers and lawyers jobs are to find loopholes like these and exploit them.

if they are dumb enough to make that rule how can it not be allowed? "Southampton are trying to exploit a loophole, plain and simple. That cannot be allowed."

[um pahars]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4251026.Football_League_says_Saints_will_not_be_deducted_points/?action=complain&cid=7619253

 

I'm still intruiged by the Derby example.

 

'He [a Saints rep] said: “Let’s be very clear, if the club goes into administration the club will be deducted 10 points.

 

“But if the holding company goes into administration then they won’t be.”

 

“The league rules are very specific, it has to be the club which goes into administration for points to be deducted.

 

“At the end of the day the Football League applies it’s rules and they specifically state it is the club that has to go into administration before points are deducted.”

 

Derby County provided the precedent which has seen Saints avoid a 10-point deduction for their parent company going into administration.

 

Back in October 2003, when ex-Saints boss George Burley was in charge at Pride Park, the Rams' parent company Derby County PLC were taken into receivership by the Co-op bank with debts of around £30m.

 

But Derby County Football Club, a seperate organisation under the umbrella of the Derby County PLC company, were not taken into administration and had no points deduction.

 

Within minutes of Derby County Ltd going into receivership, a consortium took over from them and that company ceased to exist. '

 

Although this is interesting:

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/samgreen/blog/2009/04/07/football_league_must_deduct_10_points_from_southampton

 

'Southampton are trying to exploit a loophole, plain and simple. That cannot be allowed.

 

It is argued that clubs should not be punished if their parent company gets into trouble because of its other business interests. Southampton Leisure Holdings does not have any other business interests.

 

It has also been argued that a precedent was set by Derby County, who were not deducted 10 points when their parent company went into administration in 2003. But the 10-point rule did not come into effect until the 2004-05 season, so that route is also closed.'

 

The Derby comparison is a total Red herring IMHO as points deductions were not in place when they went into administration. As the last line states they were brought in for the following season so Derby were not let off as the punishment was not in force.

 

Whether they would have is a totally different argument that we will never know the answer to .

 

West Ham is probably a better example, but even then there are differences.

 

I don't think there are any precedents in play as we are the first Football League Club to put up this defence in the current climate of points deductions.