posted Jun 22, 2009

Hopefully Pinnacle will just accept the answer and move on to complete the deal, they tried and they failed, it might be a point of priniciple but it's not worth walking away from the deal because of it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 22, 2009

old news...well 20 mins anyway

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 22, 2009

ithink we're just going to have to accept the -10pts,or there might not be a saints,but could someone please explain why Stockport aren't being punished the same as us.I've got nothing against Stockport by the way,just very confused

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 23, 2009

I don't understand why the club are appealing the ruling; it seems clear to me (as an outsider) that the club and the holding company are inextricably linked; therefore one going into administration should garner a standard punishment. Have I missed something?

In terms of the Stockport situation, it's a nonsensical part of the rules. The ten point deduction ONLY gets carried over if a club would be relegated without it, NOT if the deduction would have no impact on the current season. So because Swansea wouldn't have been relegated without the punishment, it was applied last season. How that is supposed to stop teams from taking administration when under no pressure in terms of league position I don't know.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 23, 2009

As an 'oustider' you'd know the ins and outs of the -10 point deduction? It seems to me (perhaps being biased) that maybe the FA are just too modest to acccept they are wrong (if indeed they are wrong) and to keep peace between clubs such as Leeds, rotherham ect

In my opinion, pinnacle should just let the -10 point deduction stand and take heart from Leeds and their play off finish with a -15 point deduction, showing it can be done.
Come you you reds.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 24, 2009

Pinnacle ascertain that all the club's and SLH's obligations and debts have been met. Therefore a 10 point deduction is a penalty for the fact that the take over of the club happened after SLH were in administration, a question of timing. Penalising such a thing in no way encourages investment in smaller clubs, for the benefit of the football league the points penalty should be waived.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 25, 2009

Pahars'sFlorist; I know that the holding company went into administration. The club's argument seems to be that because the company which owns the club (and, from what I understand, has the club as its only going concern) entered administration, and not the club itself, they should not have been deducted points. It was an attempt to circumvent the rules on administration; it should suprise no-one who has followed the saga of Leeds, Luton, etc. that the Football League make rules up on the fly. They were always going to amend the rules to give Southampton a deduction.

sirmatt11; entering administration gives firms more time and leeway in negotiating with creditors, it is often used as a precursor to a takeover. Why did these potential investors hold off on investing in the club until after they entered administration? The penalty is there to discourage financial mismanagement from football clubs; if anything, I believe personally that it should be harsher, as at the moment it does not seem to be performing to task.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 25, 2009

The new investors have a case, the agreement not to appeal is in fact a 'Gagging Order' As I have stated previously regarding Luton, it is the previous shareholders who should be penalised and not the new money, which of course does not grow on tree's and is very hard to come by.

The Directors of each and every club in the FL should lodge a substantial deposit with the league, if they then default in any way they forfeit the cash. Surely that would be a more equitable manner in which to police the League and would make them think twice about walking away leaving the club floundering.

It would seem that the FL is in two minds regarding Southampton but to Not penalise would of course have Luton, Leeds, Rotherham etc. up in arms and Luton have a real case regarding the gagging order and restraint of trade issues, their penalty was draconian to say the least.

I hope the new investors at Southampton fight tooth and nail, they are right both from a business point of view and morally.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 26, 2009

No,its not a gagging order,and its not unfair.The League are acting in the interest of all the clubs collectively,and not with red tinted specs on as some on this site have.The Leeds situation left several clubs in limbo right up to the end of the following season,due to them appealing through the courts,and that is what the league have to avoid happening again.it is simply not fair to the other teams in that division to do otherwise.The league is an organisation made up of member clubs,ALL of whom,including Saints,signed up to the rules.All clubs also knew that the League promised to close any loopholes that clubs tried to use,and retrospectively punish them for it.Its in black and white,and has been since the Leeds debacle,so why the indignant and biased statements from pinacle and the administrator?If you join a club,surely you abide by its rules and statements of intent,or suffer the consequences?Luton,Bournemouth,and Rotherham,all did that last season,and the quicker saints fans and new owners stop bubbing and get on with it,the sooner they will get the support of people with a fair mind on the subject.Rules,by their very nature,can be unfair in some circumstances,but if they are not applied to all,surely they become more unfair?

add comment | complain about this comment