SaintBobby Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 (edited) Assuming all goes well, we start in League One next season at -10. If things go very well and we win the appeal, we may even start at zero. But - heaven forbid - if for some reason further points penalties apply and we have to start at -17 or even -30 points, is there any circumstance in which Saints could opt to start in League 2 with a clean sheet? Personally, I think I'd prefer to start in League 2 at zero than League 1 at -17 or worse. In the latter scenario, we have mid-table mediocrity as the height of our ambition and quite possibly face relegation. In the former scenario, we probably win the division and almost certainly get promoted (given the 4 up, 4 down situation). So we'd start 2010-11 in League 1 on an "up" rather than in League 2 on a "down" Anyone know the rules? (I assume there's a rule against - as I'd have guessed Luton would have preferred to play in Blue Square at 0 rather than League 2 at -30 this season). Edited 6 May, 2009 by SaintBobby typographical errors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I think to be on the safe side the club has applied to the Wessex league...They obviously think there is more overhead rockets on the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints foreva Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 A CVA is only needed to get out of administration. (Which is how Leeds, Bournemouth, Luton all got their further point deductions) We keep getting told that the football club isn't in administration.. So surely we don't need one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I think to be on the safe side the club has applied to the Wessex league...They obviously think there is more overhead rockets on the way. I think there was some serious rumour that we'd approached Blue Square as a plan B, or did I get that totally wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I expect the FL to get pressured (by other clubs) into giving us more penalty points as they have already decided the club and holding company are one of the same. As the club or in fact SLH (as it can go into liquidation) don't need a CVA then I don't know what excuse they will come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I expect the FL to get pressured (by other clubs) into giving us more penalty points as they have already decided the club and holding company are one of the same. As the club or in fact SLH (as it can go into liquidation) don't need a CVA then I don't know what excuse they will come up with. Didn't the League accuse SLH of hindering their enquiries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I think there was some serious rumour that we'd approached Blue Square as a plan B, or did I get that totally wrong? It is right and is still possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I think there was some serious rumour that we'd approached Blue Square as a plan B, or did I get that totally wrong? correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Didn't the League accuse SLH of hindering their enquiries? The League can say and more or less do what they please. It's a question of how far they push before a club takes action. Afterall, if we want to play in their League next season we have to bend over backwards and say yes please hence the reason other clubs have taken the hit rather than go out of the league. I'm not sure why or if Luton could not have started in the Conference though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I think to be on the safe side the club has applied to the Wessex league...They obviously think there is more overhead rockets on the way.Not the club - the enquiry was by (I believe) Nick Islingsworth and the Trust to find out the highest league an alternative to SFC (like AFC Southampton ala AFC Wimbledon) could start in if SFC disappeared from the planet - which is the scenario if the money dries up before there is a buyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I think there was some serious rumour that we'd approached Blue Square as a plan B, or did I get that totally wrong? Who??????????.....we have no decision makers, so no-one would of sanctioned that. Media Hype IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 But - heaven forbid - if for some reason further points penalties apply and we have to start at -17 or even -30 points, is there any circumstance in which Saints could opt to start in League 2 with a clean sheet?No, you cannot "choose" to start in a lower league than the one you are in just to avoid starting is minus whatever. What would the FL then do with the current set of teams in that league? Promote the fourth placed team to Div 1 or stop the Conference winners being promoted? Even if it was possible, why on earth would you want to do it? Surely it is better to fight it out in as high a league as you can. Anyway, I cannot see any reason for further points deductions since I cannot see us exiting admin without a CVA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bognor regis pete Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 listening to the non league podcast they did mention Southampton fc had made an enquiry about joining the conference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 No, you cannot "choose" to start in a lower league than the one you are in just to avoid starting is minus whatever. What would the FL then do with the current set of teams in that league? Promote the fourth placed team to Div 1 or stop the Conference winners being promoted? Even if it was possible, why on earth would you want to do it? Surely it is better to fight it out in as high a league as you can. Anyway, I cannot see any reason for further points deductions since I cannot see us exiting admin without a CVA. I think there is precedent for this, when Swindon were knocked down a league after having been had up for irregular betting. I think their place went to the play-off runners-up. Presumably, if we did start in League 2, a relegated team would be spared or the play-off runners-up promoted to League 1. Other examples include teams being denied promotion because their stadium doesn't pass muster. I don't think it's always best to fight it out in the highest league you can. Not sure where the cut-off is, but at a starting point of -30, relegation is almost unavoidable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I think there is precedent for this....but the difference is that the team being "punished" did not have the choice. If there was a choice then it would already be well known to all and sundry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 listening to the non league podcast they did mention Southampton fc had made an enquiry about joining the conference Telegraph said it was a 3rd party, ie someone wanting to start AFC Southampton if the club is wound up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 ....but the difference is that the team being "punished" did not have the choice. If there was a choice then it would already be well known to all and sundry. As I say, I don't know what the rules are. But I think they should provide for choice. Forcing a club, hypothetically, to start the season on -100 points is worse than relegatign them down to the next division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I don't think it's always best to fight it out in the highest league you can. Not sure where the cut-off is, but at a starting point of -30, relegation is almost unavoidable. An equivalent to a top 6 finish is needed as the top 6 clubs in L1 last season would have stayed up even with a -27 deduction which is what I think the club gets if a CVA isnt agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 An equivalent to a top 6 finish is needed as the top 6 clubs in L1 last season would have stayed up even with a -27 deduction which is what I think the club gets if a CVA isnt agreed. Sure, but the problem is that the points deduction and your likelihood to do well are not independent events. If you're starting on, say -30 points, this indicates: 1. You're almost certainly financially screwed, so are unlikely to have a "top 6" team in terms on quality on the pitch. 2. Notwithstanding your finances, you're going to find it hard to attract/retain any decent players, as they will know at the outset that promotion is basically impossible and relegation is pretty damned likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Telegraph said it was a 3rd party, ie someone wanting to start AFC Southampton if the club is wound up.Yes - it was the Trust. On Radio Hampshire Nick Illingsworth spent a while talking about having made the approach should the worst happen, and the highest league that could accomodate a reformed version of SFC was the Wessex. To think it would be better, given the choice, to start in a lower league on zero points makes the very large assumption that we would get promoted straight away rather than spend a season fighting relegation. However, we should already know that it is easier to stay up than it is to get promoted (points deduction or not), and that if we started in Div 2 we cannot expect to have the same quality of player in our squad as we could if we were in Div 1 or the CCC (of course I use the word "quality" with tongue firmly in cheek). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Yes - it was the Trust. On Radio Hampshire Nick Illingsworth spent a while talking about having made the approach should the worst happen, and the highest league that could accomodate a reformed version of SFC was the Wessex. To think it would be better, given the choice, to start in a lower league on zero points makes the very large assumption that we would get promoted straight away rather than spend a season fighting relegation. However, we should already know that it is easier to stay up than it is to get promoted (points deduction or not), and that if we started in Div 2 we cannot expect to have the same quality of player in our squad as we could if we were in Div 1 or the CCC (of course I use the word "quality" with tongue firmly in cheek). Interesting on the Wessex league - what tier is that? Equivalent of division 9 or 10 or something? Maybe I over-stated the likelihood or promotion from L2 (or chances of relegation from L1) in my original post. But clearly, at some point, the balance tips to being better off in a lower division. -20? -30? -40? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 But clearly, at some point, the balance tips to being better off in a lower division. -20? -30? -40?I think anything worse than -17 quite likely = foobar. But it is still a moot point because there is no option for starting in a lower league. Look on the bright side - we are going to start with a new owner, new board and new sense of togetherness to ****em all and overcome the points deficit and reach the play-offs (where we will lose in a semi-final penalty shoot out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I think anything worse than -17 quite likely = foobar. But it is still a moot point because there is no option for starting in a lower league. Look on the bright side - we are going to start with a new owner, new board and new sense of togetherness to ****em all and overcome the points deficit and reach the play-offs (where we will lose in a semi-final penalty shoot out). Totally agree with all the above.:smt041....MOST agree and some want more time to consider....But there are a handful that will never agree:smt075 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Assuming all goes well, we start in League One next season at -10. If things go very well and we win the appeal, we may even start at zero. But - heaven forbid - if for some reason further points penalties apply and we have to start at -17 or even -30 points, is there any circumstance in which Saints could opt to start in League 2 with a clean sheet? Personally, I think I'd prefer to start in League 2 at zero than League 1 at -17 or worse. In the latter scenario, we have mid-table mediocrity as the height of our ambition and quite possibly face relegation. In the former scenario, we probably win the division and almost certainly get promoted (given the 4 up, 4 down situation). So we'd start 2010-11 in League 1 on an "up" rather than in League 2 on a "down" Anyone know the rules? (I assume there's a rule against - as I'd have guessed Luton would have preferred to play in Blue Square at 0 rather than League 2 at -30 this season). The FL will need a little time to work out how to stop Saints from gaining a season by self-demoting themselves. Depends which they feel is most likely to be to our disadvantage, then they will decide (having first consulted Hereford, Dagenham and Bournemouth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 A CVA is a legal mechanism to agree a reduction in debt for a company in administration. A CVA is not even possible for a company NOT in administration, they and their creditors can agree any damn figure they want to settle a debt and the league have no way of legally punishing them. The initial points issue could well be resolved in the club's favour. The lack of cooperation was the league issuing conflicting written instructions to the club and Grant Thornton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 A CVA is a legal mechanism to agree a reduction in debt for a company in administration. A CVA is not even possible for a company NOT in administration, they and their creditors can agree any damn figure they want to settle a debt and the league have no way of legally punishing them. The initial points issue could well be resolved in the club's favour. The lack of cooperation was the league issuing conflicting written instructions to the club and Grant Thornton. Reading Jeremy Wilson's Telegraph piece and listenign to Mark Fry, I do have some confidence that we might be able to rescind the 10-point penalty. Another question for knowledgeable forum members, though: Aren't there some practical (even contractual) barriers to Saints seeking legal redress through the law courts? I seem to recall that many sports have arrangements set up to prevent/penalise/deter recourse to the law. If we appeal to the stuffed suits of the FL, I give us a snowball's chance in hell. If we get in front of a court, our chances must be measurably enhanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 What are the chances of Saints not agreeing a CVA? If we don't then the most likely outcome is a -15 penalty on top of the -10. Starting on -25 would be a bit of a *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Reading Jeremy Wilson's Telegraph piece and listenign to Mark Fry, I do have some confidence that we might be able to rescind the 10-point penalty. Another question for knowledgeable forum members, though: Aren't there some practical (even contractual) barriers to Saints seeking legal redress through the law courts? I seem to recall that many sports have arrangements set up to prevent/penalise/deter recourse to the law. If we appeal to the stuffed suits of the FL, I give us a snowball's chance in hell. If we get in front of a court, our chances must be measurably enhanced. I think that is one reason why there is a holding company as it has additional legal powers than that of just a football club as a member of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Telegraph said it was a 3rd party, ie someone wanting to start AFC Southampton if the club is wound up. "If Southampton do not find a buyer soon, the club may have to go into liquidation and be re-formed. In that case the rules of football require that a club drops two divisions. Saints have already been relegated to League 1, so that would mean them starting again in the Conference. The chairman of the Conference, Brian Lee, has now confirmed that they have been sounded out about the possibility of Southampton playing in their competition next season. He told the Non-League Paper, 'We haven't actually been officially approached as such, but the question has been asked.' The idea of the former Premiership club having a derby match with Salisbury City does stretch credulity. Nevertheless, it emphasises the urgency of concluding a deal for the Saints before too long." from footballeconomy.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Salisbury yobs would be licking their lips at the prospect of fighting with a lonely Saints fan again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooohTerryHurlock Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I met a luton fan recently who felt the club was getting a double punishment. - what still gets me as that the punishment of -30 only punishes one group of people.... Us... The Fans. The money men have ****ed off and we the honest paying football supporter then suffers watching a season where your chances of survival are so handicapped that it is like watching a slow death. I think there should be an agreed maximum penalty where by you can either suffer the deficet or suffer a double relegation. How ever Bournemouth and Rotherham have shown that it is possible to survive massive debts. But I do feel that there should be other ways to punish clubs rather than points deductions as it is just not fair on the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I met a luton fan recently who felt the club was getting a double punishment. - what still gets me as that the punishment of -30 only punishes one group of people.... Us... The Fans. The money men have ****ed off and we the honest paying football supporter then suffers watching a season where your chances of survival are so handicapped that it is like watching a slow death. I think there should be an agreed maximum penalty where by you can either suffer the deficet or suffer a double relegation. How ever Bournemouth and Rotherham have shown that it is possible to survive massive debts. But I do feel that there should be other ways to punish clubs rather than points deductions as it is just not fair on the fans. Really tricky one this. You're right that the fans are always the innocent victims. But there does need to be some penalty in place to stop financial mismanagement. And it's hard for the football authorities to go after the money men. I would, however, like to have an FA rule that any and all board members of a club that goes into admin are all automatically barred for life from further football involvement at board level - for life - on a "fit and proper person" test. 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