Post by QPR Report on Apr 2, 2009 6:25:03 GMT
Pathetic - if accurate !
Guardian/Owen Gibson
Anger as Saints set to avoid points penalty• Club likely to be placed in administration
• Luton Town lead chorus of criticss
The Football League was last night accused of "double standards" by clubs who have been docked points, after it emerged that Southampton are unlikely to attract a penalty when their holding company is placed into administration today.
Southampton Leisure Holdings announced to the stock market yesterday that its shares were being suspended because the uncertainty around the company meant it was unable to meet the deadline for posting its half-year results.
The club has debts of close to £28m, comprising a £4.5m overdraft with Barclays and a loan with Norwich Union that financed the stadium. It is understood that negotiations with the bank have foundered, leaving administration as the only option, with the accountants Begbies Traynor believed to be standing by.
But it appears that Southampton would be able to avoid a penalty being applied at the start of next season, as long as the football club subsidiary avoided administration. In order for that to happen, it is believed that new investors would have to be found by the summer.
The issue will be discussed at a Football League board meeting next Tuesday, but if Southampton do avoid incurring a penalty it would open a can of worms with other clubs who have had deductions applied.
Luton Town's managing director, Gary Sweet, who had to contend with a 30-point deduction after rescuing the club from administration last August, said: "This makes a mockery of the Football League's attempt to uphold the integrity of the competition. If this sails through I see no reason why any footballclub should not set up a holding company that carries the entire debt of the club which is periodically put into administration in order to cleanse debt whilst attracting no sanctions."
He added: "This smacks yet again as double standards between clubs at different levels of the game." Sweet said an additional 10-point penalty incurred by Luton from the Football Association was imposed because the previous owners paid agents from the club's holding company, which he said "clearly recognises the relationship between the holding company and the club itself".
www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/apr/02/southampton-saints-administration-championship-relegation
The TIMES - Southampton on spot over penalty 'loophole'
Gary Jacob and Tom Dart
Southampton’s hopes of escaping a ten-point penalty by putting their parent company — rather than the club — into administration yesterday could be derailed by the Football League. Although it is understood that the lawyers of Barclays, the bank owed £4 million by the parent company, have received indications that there will be no penalty, the League board will discuss the matter on Tuesday and is awaiting information that could take many weeks to sift through.
Rupert Lowe, the parent company’s executive chairman, and most members of its board have resigned. If the lowly Coca-Cola Championship club were to avoid a points deduction — which would apply next season, when they may be in League One — it would spark anger among clubs who have had penalties for entering administration, including Luton Town, who would take legal advice on the basis that it represents a double standard.
Luton face relegation to the Blue Square Premier after starting the season in League Two on minus 30 points. They were docked 20 points for failing to satisfy League rules on insolvency and ten for breaching FA rules by paying agents through a holding company. Gary Sweet, the Luton managing director, said that “the Football League can certainly expect to hear from Luton Town” if Southampton escape via an apparent loophole.
“I find this absolutely amazing,” Sweet said. “If the holding company owns 100 per cent of the football club, a liquidation of the holding company would result in the club ceasing to be.”
That stance was backed by Tony Stewart, the chairman of Rotherham United, also of League Two, who were deducted 17 points this season. “It doesn’t matter whether it’s a holding company or whatever, the issue is if creditors are not going to be paid,” Stewart said. “[Should Southampton not lose points] it’s a dual standard.”
The League must consider whether the effect of the holding company going into administration is akin to the club doing the same. If it believes it is, it could impose a sanction. Southampton would almost certainly mount a challenge because League rules state that only a club entering administration is deducted points. This does not apply to holding companies.
Some believe that Southampton are exploiting a loophole, but it is a grey area. The rules are designed to prevent a club who are run properly being penalised for their holding company having problems elsewhere. The club would argue that they should not suffer. However, Southampton’s parent company owns only the football assets and land around St Mary’s Stadium.
The company may have taken the decision for other reasons. It could ease the administrator’s efforts to force through a sale, and averts a Company Voluntary Arrangement, which is required by the League for a club to exit administration and is complex.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article6018369.ece
Guardian/Owen Gibson
Anger as Saints set to avoid points penalty• Club likely to be placed in administration
• Luton Town lead chorus of criticss
The Football League was last night accused of "double standards" by clubs who have been docked points, after it emerged that Southampton are unlikely to attract a penalty when their holding company is placed into administration today.
Southampton Leisure Holdings announced to the stock market yesterday that its shares were being suspended because the uncertainty around the company meant it was unable to meet the deadline for posting its half-year results.
The club has debts of close to £28m, comprising a £4.5m overdraft with Barclays and a loan with Norwich Union that financed the stadium. It is understood that negotiations with the bank have foundered, leaving administration as the only option, with the accountants Begbies Traynor believed to be standing by.
But it appears that Southampton would be able to avoid a penalty being applied at the start of next season, as long as the football club subsidiary avoided administration. In order for that to happen, it is believed that new investors would have to be found by the summer.
The issue will be discussed at a Football League board meeting next Tuesday, but if Southampton do avoid incurring a penalty it would open a can of worms with other clubs who have had deductions applied.
Luton Town's managing director, Gary Sweet, who had to contend with a 30-point deduction after rescuing the club from administration last August, said: "This makes a mockery of the Football League's attempt to uphold the integrity of the competition. If this sails through I see no reason why any footballclub should not set up a holding company that carries the entire debt of the club which is periodically put into administration in order to cleanse debt whilst attracting no sanctions."
He added: "This smacks yet again as double standards between clubs at different levels of the game." Sweet said an additional 10-point penalty incurred by Luton from the Football Association was imposed because the previous owners paid agents from the club's holding company, which he said "clearly recognises the relationship between the holding company and the club itself".
www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/apr/02/southampton-saints-administration-championship-relegation
The TIMES - Southampton on spot over penalty 'loophole'
Gary Jacob and Tom Dart
Southampton’s hopes of escaping a ten-point penalty by putting their parent company — rather than the club — into administration yesterday could be derailed by the Football League. Although it is understood that the lawyers of Barclays, the bank owed £4 million by the parent company, have received indications that there will be no penalty, the League board will discuss the matter on Tuesday and is awaiting information that could take many weeks to sift through.
Rupert Lowe, the parent company’s executive chairman, and most members of its board have resigned. If the lowly Coca-Cola Championship club were to avoid a points deduction — which would apply next season, when they may be in League One — it would spark anger among clubs who have had penalties for entering administration, including Luton Town, who would take legal advice on the basis that it represents a double standard.
Luton face relegation to the Blue Square Premier after starting the season in League Two on minus 30 points. They were docked 20 points for failing to satisfy League rules on insolvency and ten for breaching FA rules by paying agents through a holding company. Gary Sweet, the Luton managing director, said that “the Football League can certainly expect to hear from Luton Town” if Southampton escape via an apparent loophole.
“I find this absolutely amazing,” Sweet said. “If the holding company owns 100 per cent of the football club, a liquidation of the holding company would result in the club ceasing to be.”
That stance was backed by Tony Stewart, the chairman of Rotherham United, also of League Two, who were deducted 17 points this season. “It doesn’t matter whether it’s a holding company or whatever, the issue is if creditors are not going to be paid,” Stewart said. “[Should Southampton not lose points] it’s a dual standard.”
The League must consider whether the effect of the holding company going into administration is akin to the club doing the same. If it believes it is, it could impose a sanction. Southampton would almost certainly mount a challenge because League rules state that only a club entering administration is deducted points. This does not apply to holding companies.
Some believe that Southampton are exploiting a loophole, but it is a grey area. The rules are designed to prevent a club who are run properly being penalised for their holding company having problems elsewhere. The club would argue that they should not suffer. However, Southampton’s parent company owns only the football assets and land around St Mary’s Stadium.
The company may have taken the decision for other reasons. It could ease the administrator’s efforts to force through a sale, and averts a Company Voluntary Arrangement, which is required by the League for a club to exit administration and is complex.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article6018369.ece
