Bailey Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 To be honest, what Mawhinney is saying is true. The parent company and the club are both 'inextricably' linked, and so I suppose we do deserve the penalty. Even the most biased of Southampton fans would have to admit that that is the case. However, the rules need to be changed in order to prevent this from happening again in the future. What I don't understand is why we'd bother contesting the decision. The Football League would never revoke their decision, and any appeal would put us at risk of being handed a further punishment. The last thing we'd want is to start on -17, or worse, -30! In my opinion, we should just accept the decision, continue our search for a potential buyer and look to rebuild our club. To appeal and drag this whole thing out just seems a waste of both time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsie Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 23 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 April, 2009 However, if the statement released on the official site is true, then the Football League's conduct has been nothing short of a disgrace and they need to have a long, hard look at themselves. Despite this, the fact remains that Southampton Leisure Holdings and Southampton FC are linked, and so I can understand why the Football League have decided to impose this points deduction on us. The loophole needs to be closed so this doesn't happen again in the future. As I've said, if the statement on the OS is true, then you can understand why both the Administrators and the club are angry and wanting to contest the decision, I just fear that any appeal will result in the Football League hitting us with a further points deduction, one that our club may struggle to come back from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 No we shouldn't accept it. We should fight it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I agree that we should probably just accept it as they're very unlikely to change their decision, but I don't agree that we should have been penalised in the first place. The rules were at fault and we were simply exploiting a loophole that the football league should have already closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 23 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 April, 2009 No we shouldn't accept it. We should fight it. I can understand this, and I (sort of) agree. However, I just can't see the Football League revoking their decision, and the chances of them coming down even harder on us for contesting their ruling is pretty high. I just think we'd be better off biting our tongue and accepting relegation to League One, possibly starting on -10, and start rebuilding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We have to accept it. The FL always wins. But we could sue Barclays or Lowe or both for not doing their homework re the March deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soggy Bottom Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I agree that we should probably just accept it as they're very unlikely to change their decision, but I don't agree that we should have been penalised in the first place. The rules were at fault and we were simply exploiting a loophole that the football league should have already closed. Many court cases have been won, because of loop holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Many court cases have been won, because of loop holes. Well it could be worth challenging it then. I realy don't know enough about it but if the rules can be enforced by law and we technically haven't broken them then we should appeal. Can we afford the legal costs though?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandwichsaint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Southampton will be relegated from the Championship after being docked 10 points by the Football League. The penalty comes after the club's parent company went into administration at the start of April. Southampton are currently four points off safety with two games to go and, even if they beat the drop, they will be deducted 10 points. If they do not avoid finishing in the bottom three then the points penalty will take effect next season. The south coast outfit had hoped to avoid the punishment as they argued that their parent company Southampton Leisure Holdings plc had gone into administration. But a League investigation by "independent forensic accountants" found that the club and the holding company were "inextricably linked as one economic entity" and applied their mandatory penalty. The League also found that: "The holding company has no income of its own; all revenue and expenditure is derived from the operation of Southampton Football Club and the associated stadium company "The holding company is solvent in its own right. It only becomes insolvent when account is taken of the position of Southampton football club and the other group companies." The statement added that there was no alternative other than to invoke the 10-point penalty. It was also revealed that the company commissioned to look into the matter reported that co-operation with them was withdrawn towards the end of their enquiries. Southampton are the fifth Football League team to be deducted points this season - Darlington entered administration, while Luton, Bournemouth and Rotherham were all penalised for coming out of administration without a Company Voluntary Agreement in place, as per the League's insolvency guidelines. From BBC Football; seems Lowe's little ruse was easily seen through , SLH and SFC 'inextricably linked', whoever thought otherwise? Surely Barclay's should have pulled the plug before the deadline? They could presumably have re-called their OD 'on demand' at any time; why wait till we're in minus points territory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 SLH and SFC 'inextricably linked', whoever thought otherwise? Probably no one but that's not the point. I don't know the official rules but if they don't refer to a company 'inextricably linked' to the FC then we haven't broken them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strummer Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We have to accept it. The FL always wins. But we could sue Barclays or Lowe or both for not doing their homework re the March deadline. Er, on what grounds could 'we' sue Braclays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 When are West Ham being deducted their ten points then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Well maybe I'm being naive, but if the FL has an appeals process surely they can't increase the penalty because we choose to use it? If I was convicted of a crime I hadn't committed and I appealed I wouldn't expect my sentence to be increased just because I'd used my right of appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 23 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 April, 2009 At the end of the day, both the club and the Administrators need to decide if appealing the decision is worth the risk. The risk being that the Football League are likely to punish us further for contesting their decision. If they (Administators and the club) genuinely believe that we have valid reasons to appeal, then go ahead, but if the chances are that the deduction will be upheld, with the possibility of further punishment, then is it worth the hassle. Whatever happens, it looks as though this is going to get very messy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreog Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Why not just take the bitter medicine and start again in the pitch playing football that attracts people back and gives partial success?.......... to appeal and string this whole thing along will be another painful episode in the sorry woeful tale that is Saints..........I'm sure most fans would settle for a team the actually TRIES for 90 minutes and wins the odd game without all the squabbling and internal wrangling that has gone on in recent years............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stirchleysaint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Why not just take the bitter medicine and start again in the pitch playing football that attracts people back and gives partial success?.......... to appeal and string this whole thing along will be another painful episode in the sorry woeful tale that is Saints..........I'm sure most fans would settle for a team the actually TRIES for 90 minutes and wins the odd game without all the squabbling and internal wrangling that has gone on in recent years............ True enough, Burnley will ensure that we'll be relegated the traditional way. All this chest-puffing is tedious to say the least. We are members of the Football League. The Football League has rules. If we don't accept the rules, what league are people suggesting we play in? Wessex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 When are West Ham being deducted their ten points then? They're in a different league to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 True enough, Burnley will ensure that we'll be relegated the traditional way. All this chest-puffing is tedious to say the least. We are members of the Football League. The Football League has rules. If we don't accept the rules, what league are people suggesting we play in? Wessex? Give it time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Yes...Lets get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Many court cases have been won, because of loop holes. the law and football league rules aren't one and the same thing, unlike SLH PLC and SFC Ltd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Fight it. The whole points deduction thing is a farce anyway. Tighter rules could've been set in place to prevent clubs from going into admin on a whim without kicking the genuinely damaged clubs while they're down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint dyer Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 how come derby got away with it???????????????????????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewell Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 If we do not accept out penalty then it could get a whole lot worse. Some people would do very well to remember that. Without the football league we are an armature team, however some would say that is our standard already! Better to start next season in league 1 with -10 points rather than go out of business or possibly the league find even worse punishments due to our insolvency problems. The sporting sanctions rule along with there insolvency rules does give the league license to make our position even more difficult. Accept it, get over it, embrace and celebrate where we are, win the title! Come on Saints! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 There should be a different way of punishing clubs that go into administration. The Football League should be there to look after its clubs. They should be actively helping its clubs to get out of poor financial predicaments. A fairer way to punish clubs is to ban them from all cup competitions for 3 years. This will reduce revenue but not as dramatically and in one go. It will mean that over a period of time the clubs will lose out on lucrative cup money and also have a blot on their history. That's fairer, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 They're in a different league to us. Ah, that's ok then. But tell me, whay the feck are the wealthy now having to pay more tax to support the needy?? What a disgrace when the wealthy have an abject right to p!ss on anyone. Football's got it right. Shame on Darling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 That OJ Simpson - he never killed that woman you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 No we shouldn't accept it. We should fight it. Agreed, we haven't broken any rules but found a loophole which is the football leagues fault not ours, we just exploited it. Why should we be punished due to their incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Fight it. The whole points deduction thing is a farce anyway. Tighter rules could've been set in place to prevent clubs from going into admin on a whim without kicking the genuinely damaged clubs while they're down. +1 The rule is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Inextricably linked - **** me they need forensic accountants to tell them that! SLH were the holding company of course there was a link - SFC are/were an asset of SLH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latter day saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 fight them all the way! they are making an example of us because we dared use a loophole which showed how stupid there regulations are. the whole way they have handled it from the start is farsical, as is the timing of the anouncement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musesaint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 The League rules penalise football clubs which ARE in administration SFC is NOT in administration The League rules say nothing about parent companies. They cannot bend the rules to suit the outcome they are aiming to achieve. It's akin to reversing a penalty decision after a game has ended ......they are wrong and there is every reason to believe a court will say that I wonder if it is relevant that one of the three man members on the review panel is a Director of Norwich? FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Engine Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 The League rules penalise football clubs which ARE in administration SFC is NOT in administration The League rules say nothing about parent companies. They cannot bend the rules to suit the outcome they are aiming to achieve. It's akin to reversing a penalty decision after a game has ended ......they are wrong and there is every reason to believe a court will say that I wonder if it is relevant that one of the three man members on the review panel is a Director of Norwich? FFS! The question here is what do we mean by the term "club"? The assets and liabilities of the organisation that calls itself Sothampton Football Club are attached to various legal entities, such as SFC Limited - and all these entities are held together in the shape of SLH plc. The League statement suggests that debts owed by SFC Limited were shunted out on paper to SLH plc - so we're the ones bending the rules - our defence is a sham based on a technicality based on Lowe's assumption that the FL is naive ... the FL have enough in their armoury to make the points deduction stick even if the matter ends up in Court. Let's just take the penalty and move on. The administrator must have been downright obstructive to be censured by the FL as being uncooperative. I assume that the forensic examination revealed other matters that the FL wished to investigate but were denied access to. I suspect that further points deductions may be brewing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We don't have a leg to stand on. As i said ages ago as did Exit and we were shot down for it we would get the penalty as sure as day follows night. Our whole defence was to say the club and PLC were seperate and not the same, they could survive seperate. That is just pure Mickey Mouse stuff. How does a company with no income get into £30m+ debt? Because it is borrowed with the intention of going to the Club. The assets of the club are used to support the loan. Without the club as an asset there would be no loan. The club and PLC are the same, the PLC can not live without the club. The loophole only counts for two different entities. The Derby case is so different from ours. In 1minute of going into admin the admin team sold Derby and recouped some of the clubs debts for the creditors with the agreement more of it would be paid back by the new owners. They were not trying to dodge paying it back they just used admin as a way to sell the club to new owners. It was all pre-planned and agreed with the creditors (banks)before the announcement. Roll on 3 weeks since our announcement and nothing has changed. If we had done the exact same thing as Derby then we can argue our case, but we haven't. The club will appeal and the thing will drag on for years. Another cloud over our head to deal with in the future. This club has been run like **** since after the last game of last season. Error upon error from Wilde and Lowe. And this was to be their final error. We all knew the team was playing ****. We were in the relegation zone for like 5 months for christ sake. The chances of us getting out of it were always very low. We should of gone into admin before the deadline. Finish the season with a points deduction and start 100% from scratch next season, with no more anchors around our necks to pull us down further. But nope we thought we would try and be clever. So now not only are we relegated but we will start next season with minus 10 and another relegation battle to look forward to. Meaning due to the decision of going into admin after the deadline we could be looking at Div 2 football this time next year. What has happened to our club is nothing short of heart breaking. Especially for us fans who travel to nearly every game regardless of the cost or weather. We do that because we have hope, hope that maybe today is the day we hit the bottom and can start to go forwards finally. But with even all this that has happened we can't even do that now. Chances are we will have to wait at least another 12 months before we can finally go forwards. So no we should not appeal. We should of accepted our fate before the deadline. The team never looked like it would stay up. At no point this season have i felt we were anything above a bottom three side. It was all about hoping things would change on the pitch. That never happened. It was obvious we were going to be relegated. We should take the penalty and start next season with whatever team we have knowing that from the 1st game we are in a relegation battle. Then whatever happens after the final game of that season if we have survived or even if we don't then we know we have hit the bottom and we can finally start to go forwards again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 ........ The administrator must have been downright obstructive to be censured by the FL as being uncooperative. I assume that the forensic examination revealed other matters that the FL wished to investigate but were denied access to. I suspect that further points deductions may be brewing up. If 'forensic examination' is anything like audit then I can tell you that Terms of Reference are agreed for the work to be carried out. I'm an auditor and I wouldn't go outside my remit unless I'd got the agreement of the entity I was auditing (unless I thought that something criminal was going on). It appears that Grant Thornton did exceed their remit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 A penalty? we'd probably miss it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I personally agree with Bailey on this one, I think we should just accept it and get on with it – I’d love to fight it, don’t’ get me wrong...but I just worry the FL will start screwing us even more (because they love ruining football clubs....I saw Maw*nkers's face on SSN, he was loving it) I just want to know where we are, what we have to do, with no uncertainty on our backs next year...the FL are complete ****s, so there is every chance they are poised to screw us even more if we kick up a fuss (Leeds...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We have to accept it. The FL always wins. But we could sue Barclays or Lowe or both for not doing their homework re the March deadline. I think legal action against Lowe may be worth examining to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I think legal action against Lowe may be worth examining to be honest. For what? And who is going to take legal action? Let's concentrate on reality. He has gone for good. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junction 9 Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We should accept it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 For what? And who is going to take legal action? Let's concentrate on reality. He has gone for good. The end. You're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southbourne saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Who hears the appeal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamsaint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 we should take the 10 points. We have no moral high ground. this football club needs new owners. It needs management players and supporters all pulling together. It needs real targets, like the L1 playoffs. It really doesn't need to rake over the past and Lowe's legacy of failure, and it doesn't need the distraction of endless legal battles. This football club needs to get back to playing the best, most entertaining football it can, for a stadium full of appreciative fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We are members of the Football League. The Football League has rules. If we don't accept the rules, what league are people suggesting we play in? Wessex? errm I think that's the point. They have rules which haven't been broken by SFC. Still the club has been penalised. Sorry, but get your facts right. It's like being at school and having to accept the discipline of a teacher without recourse. I say fight the ****ers and if that means more ridiculous points reductions so be it. I'll be standing on the touchline watching Saints, don't care if they drop out of the FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewell Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 we should take the 10 points. We have no moral high ground. this football club needs new owners. It needs management players and supporters all pulling together. It needs real targets, like the L1 playoffs. It really doesn't need to rake over the past and Lowe's legacy of failure, and it doesn't need the distraction of endless legal battles. This football club needs to get back to playing the best, most entertaining football it can, for a stadium full of appreciative fans. Spot on and well said! :smt038 The sooner the club and it's fans stop clutching at straws and look to the future the sooner we can get back wo what really matters and that is Southampton FC having a future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I think we should accept the 10 points now to be honest. We are down with Wotte anyway. Let's go down with pride and not fight a daft battle that frankly just winds up teams and supporters around us to make us look like an arrogant Club, which we became under Lowe. We need to take the relegation with 10 points now and start afresh with a new owner AND MANAGER in League 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Its hard to argue against the conclusions that the FL have drawn, but seeing as the moral justification is there and the legal justification is not far off, why am I left feeling that the club was set up ? It sounds like Grant Thornton steamed in there and started going beyond their remit (why ?) and when someone finally said "boo" to them, they packed up, walked out and made a summary report, which the FL pounced on. The whole thing stinks..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We should accept it and move on. I think we should dwell on it for the next 10 years, becoming more bitter and torn up by it, mentioning Lowe in every thread and turning into a bunch of Miss Havishams, sitting around in our FA Cup final shirts with faces like alpine saint. Which in reality is what will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I think we should dwell on it for the next 10 years, becoming more bitter and torn up by it, mentioning Lowe in every thread and turning into a bunch of Miss Havishams, sitting around in our FA Cup final shirts with faces like alpine saint. Which in reality is what will happen. Not bitter at all, and certainly not dwelling on it. Some of us have seen this coming since the start of the season, so have got used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 I think we should dwell on it for the next 10 years, becoming more bitter and torn up by it, mentioning Lowe in every thread and turning into a bunch of Miss Havishams, sitting around in our FA Cup final shirts with faces like alpine saint. Which in reality is what will happen. LOL!!! I think we're going to start celebrating from next season onwards again. 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