Clapham Saint Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Not seen this mentioned before, however from this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8007763.stm The BBC discuss Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson (West Ham's owner) being in financial difficulty. He bought the club via his personal holding company i.e. He owns a Company which owns the shares in West Ham. Seem familiar? I will admit that I haven't checked the exact ownership structure of West Ham, however: "Icelandic bank Straumur provided much of the money in loans for Mr Gudmundsson's £85m purchase of West Ham United in November 2006. Since then Mr Gudmundsson's holding company Hansa - in effect West Ham's United's holding company - has hit financial difficulties and gone into administration." Can somebody on here point out some differences between Premier League Rules and Football League rules or is this a case of one rule for one and another Rule for another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 20 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 April, 2009 They haven't broken the rules and neither have we. Yes it's a loophole, but if they don't like it they'll have to change the rules from next season. Agreed, however why the fuss over us and not with them? Or have I been blissfully ignorant of the independent investigation being made into their finances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 If we get deducted ten points, then I would imagine they would too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Agreed, however why the fuss over us and not with them? Or have I been blissfully ignorant of the independent investigation being made into their finances? This was discussed at great length on things like Sky News some time back and basically It's West Ham innit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker268 Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 If they aren't deducted points and we are then that will be one of the worst decisions ever. I still don't think we should as although it is a loophole, it is still their rules and they shouldn't change them under fears of complaints from other clubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Or maybe West Ham's parent company has more than the football club under it's umbrella. Unlike you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Look at Rule 60, page 94. http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/7a/20/0,,12306~139386,00.pdf Sporting sanction is only for a "CLub" in insolvency and it is a 9 point deduction. If you go up to Rule 50, it states that a club can be suspended if it "or its parent undertaking" goes into insolvency. Suspention means no more matches. Wonder if the PL have therefore decided not to suspend West Ham. A bit further down it says if the suspension is postponed that the club cannot sign players and may have other restrictions placed on it. Not heard of anything like that happening to West Ham so I wonder if it is as clear cut as it appears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Premier League and Football League are separate companies, so have different rules... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 20 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Or maybe West Ham's parent company has more than the football club under it's umbrella. Unlike you. I think you'll find that SLH has more than a football club. It also owns a company which operates a stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 (edited) If we get deducted ten points, then I would imagine they would too. Unless, of course, they manage to get Trevor Brooking on the committee deciding their fate. But surely something like that could never happen could it? ;-) Edited 20 April, 2009 by Sheaf Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Or maybe West Ham's parent company has more than the football club under it's umbrella. Unlike you. At least if you're going to break the rules and post in here try to make sure that you're not talking toss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Agreed, however why the fuss over us and not with them? Or have I been blissfully ignorant of the independent investigation being made into their finances? Cough,,,thank you Sir Trevor;-).........simples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 I think you'll find that SLH has more than a football club. It also owns a company which operates a stadium. Nah but you've got to look at by who creates the debts. In our case it's absurd salaries to crap players, hence -10 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incongruous Monk Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 I think you'll find that SLH has more than a football club. It also owns a company which operates a stadium. Not to mention an events management company, and until recently as radio station and a financial services company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 20 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Not to mention an events management company, and until recently as radio station and a financial services company. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Not to mention an events management company, and until recently as radio station and a financial services company. As well as world class catering facilities. Lest we forget... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Nah but you've got to look at by who creates the debts. In our case it's absurd salaries to crap players, hence -10 points. Most of our debt is the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceandfriendly Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Not to mention an events management company, and until recently as radio station and a financial services company. and I don't think the many concerts staged by SLH have a great deal to do with Southampton FC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 If we get deducted ten points, then I would imagine they would too. Nope, WHU are in trouble because of the Icelandic banks, not because the football club has been mismanaged. Saints should get -10, WHU shouldnt get anything if they can prove the club isnt running at a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Nope, WHU are in trouble because of the Icelandic banks, not because the football club has been mismanaged. Saints should get -10, WHU shouldnt get anything if they can prove the club isnt running at a loss. Er, we're both in trouble because primary sources of funding have been withdrawn. Amounts to the same thing in my book. No Icelandic banking crisis, no need for Barclays not to extend their overdraft facility. What about Manchester United, what was there annual loss? Or Chelsea's? When you take away the debt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 20 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 April, 2009 Nope, WHU are in trouble because of the Icelandic banks, not because the football club has been mismanaged. Saints should get -10, WHU shouldnt get anything if they can prove the club isnt running at a loss. What a load of bull. Icelandic banking is only an issue if WHU break their banking covenants or need to borrow more money to continue trading. Not unlike... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 20 April, 2009 Share Posted 20 April, 2009 WHU was bought on leveraged money. Where did that debt end up? Liverpool got the lot slapped on them and pay 30mil a year in interest WHU have an issue at the top of their structure Let us not forget the issue at club level as well - a little matter of Sheffield United and compensation claims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Stripe Posted 21 April, 2009 Share Posted 21 April, 2009 Not sure if anything will save us going down now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 21 April, 2009 Share Posted 21 April, 2009 Not seen this mentioned before, however from this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8007763.stm The BBC discuss Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson (West Ham's owner) being in financial difficulty. He bought the club via his personal holding company i.e. He owns a Company which owns the shares in West Ham. Seem familiar? I will admit that I haven't checked the exact ownership structure of West Ham, however: "Icelandic bank Straumur provided much of the money in loans for Mr Gudmundsson's £85m purchase of West Ham United in November 2006. Since then Mr Gudmundsson's holding company Hansa - in effect West Ham's United's holding company - has hit financial difficulties and gone into administration." Can somebody on here point out some differences between Premier League Rules and Football League rules or is this a case of one rule for one and another Rule for another? Was here last week !! http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=12283 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 21 April, 2009 Share Posted 21 April, 2009 Well a) premier league and football league have different rules, and b) the big boys have to watch their own backs. Even man united's parent company is in trouble. The football club is doing well financially but the parent company (because it borrowed to buy the club) has huge debts that would cancel that out if they were a single entity. What if they went into administration? Can you see the premier league daring to dock Man U any points? The supposed difference will be how much else the holding company does, or owns, apart from the football club. The football powers-that-be will hide behind that supposed distinction somehow. They won't dare dock West Ham points in case they are next to suffer.... as long as west ham pay their football debts. K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 21 April, 2009 Share Posted 21 April, 2009 They haven't broken the rules and neither have we. Yes it's a loophole, but if they don't like it they'll have to change the rules from next season. That has to be correct. Be nice if we're not alone in this battle too. 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