Southampton

[alanmayes]

The Football League statement said: "At its meeting today, the Board of The Football League reviewed the report of the independent forensic accountants commissioned by The League to examine the circumstances at Southampton Football Club, together with external legal advice as to the interpretation of The League’s regulations.

"The report, by Grant Thornton, set out in detail the various inter-relationships between the four different group companies at Southampton Leisure Holdings Plc (the Holding Company).

"The conclusions were based both on the content of the annual accounts published by the Holding Company, which include the Club, and other information made available to Grant Thornton as part of their enquiries.

"The Board noted that Grant Thornton reported that toward the end of their enquiries co-operation with them was withdrawn.

"The report concluded, among other things, that:

1. The Holding Company has no income of its own; all revenue and expenditure is derived from the operation of Southampton Football Club Limited (SFC) and the associated stadium company.

2. The Holding company is solvent in its own right. It only becomes insolvent when account is taken of the position of SFC and the other group companies.

3. The three entities (the Holding Company, SFC and the stadium company) comprise the football club and they are inextricably linked as one economic entity.

In light of all this advice, the Board concluded that an administrator had been appointed in respect of the Club or part of its undertaking or assets.

Accordingly, it was left with no alternative other than to invoke its ‘Sporting Sanctions’ regulations and apply a 10 point penalty to the Club. The other provisions of The League’s insolvency policy also become effective.

As the insolvency event occurred after The Football League’s deadline of the fourth Thursday in March, the points deduction will take effect either:

1. In the current season, if Southampton avoid relegation to League 1; or

2. Next season, if the club does not avoid relegation."

Fry denied that the club and administrators had not co-operated with the League investigation. "The point regarding non-co-operation is not accepted," the administartors' statement read.

[Spencer_White]

It is quite obvious that they are in administration.

When you get chairman trying to be clever like this, it just ends up tieing the club in knots, and making it all much harder to sort out for a new buyer. To be honest I didnt think a takeover at Swindon would happen because there just seemed to be too many hurdles put in its place.

The League are quite right to enforce it. Discourages all the holding company nonsense.

[blinkpip]

Southampton are going to appeal.

[Rich Pullen]

Southampton are going to appeal.

...and they're going to lose.

[ibelieveinmrreeves]

...and they're going to lose.

and probably get more for appealing [/over-cynicism]

[jonny72]

...and they're going to lose.

For definite after Leon Crouch (one of the clubs recent chairmen) stuck his nose in....

"Southampton Leisure Holdings and Southampton Football Club are two separate companies. Mark Fry is the administrator for SLH, he's not the administrator for the club. We're not in administration, we're paying our bills and I don't see how they can take these points off us. Southampton Football Club was set up so that if this ever happened, we would not have these points deducted - it's the way they have interpreted the rules.

I really hope they aren't stupid enough to appeal as the Football League tend to take a pretty dim view of it, most likely outcome is they will end up with an even harsher penalty which they will fully deserve. Even more stupid as if they don't agree a CVA (which they probably won't if they owe HMCE money) the Football League can refuse to renew their membership (or refuse a transfer to a new company) for next season.

[Doore]

I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but I heard ex-Chairman Leon Crouch on Five Live earlier - essentially he struggled to explain the differential between the holding company and the club and then, possibly accidentally, said that they had set up the holding company to avoid a points deduction should they need to go into administration.  So essentially they tried to use a legal loophole to gain an unfair advantage on the rest.  It could be argued that it is legal, but it would be difficult to argue it's sporting or ethical merits.

To coin a horribly romantic cliché - is this what the game we all love has come to?

[jonny72]

II heard ex-Chairman Leon Crouch on Five Live earlier - essentially he struggled to explain the differential between the holding company and the club

I listened to that interview on the BBC website. Its hilarious, as was the interview with the administrator. Both of them contradicting themselves continually and totally failing to explain how the two entities are totally separate and independent of each other. If you read the annual accounts of the holding company it talks about; income from player sales / TV / match day etc and looks exactly the same as the accounts of any football club. Except of course its not a football club and has nothing to do with a football club, according to them. Complete and utter bollocks.

[Colin Todd]

"The report concluded, among other things, that:

1. The Holding Company has no income of its own; all revenue and expenditure is derived from the operation of Southampton Football Club Limited (SFC) and the associated stadium company.

2. The Holding company is solvent in its own right. It only becomes insolvent when account is taken of the position of SFC and the other group companies.

3. The three entities (the Holding Company, SFC and the stadium company) comprise the football club and they are inextricably linked as one economic entity.

They havnt got a leg to stand on with this. Rightfully decucted 10 points.

[tans]

Good. I hate Southampton.

Can we steal Nathan Dyer and Wright Phillips off you please

[ibelieveinmrreeves]

Dyers off to Swansea I believe.

[Phil_S]

I have thought for a long tiomethat the Football league should insiost that all majority shareholders & directors should pay the league a bond on taking up their postion. That bond would pay interest, & would be refundable when they relinquish their position. For majority shareholders it would be a % of the amount paid for the shares & for directors a flat fee.
It would be forfeited should they be found to have been guilty of mal administration (or appointing general managers who are guilty of mal administration).
If something like that were in place I'm sure we wouldn't have had the likes of Carson Bowden & Diamandis wrecking our club

[Samdy Gray]

If something like that were in place I'm sure we wouldn't have had the likes of Carson Bowden & Diamandis wrecking our club

Oh come on, I don't think Bowden did much wrong. In fact, I don't think he ever did anything at all apart from post on message boards.

[ronnie21]

Oh come on, I don't think Bowden did much wrong. In fact, I don't think he ever did anything at all apart from post on message boards.

He never bought me a pint in the Gluey!

[pauld]

Oh come on, I don't think Bowden did much wrong. In fact, I don't think he ever did anything at all apart from post on message boards.

You could say the same for Carson, tbh, except that he didn't even post on messageboards. Where Bowden more than Carson takes blame is in his frantic efforts to prop up the old board. And impersonating an ice cream