re: Southampton leisure holdings
I don't think there's anything to cheer about from either side. Yet again it's further evidence of the unsustainability of the ludicrous salaries paid to players and staff compared to the income a club actually generates.
I have no problem with billionaires bankrolling clubs, it's their money and that is their prerogative. It should be mandatory that no club, or holding concern, is able to finance a club through the use of any loan arrangement.
Furthermore anyone investing in a club should be made to put that money, up front, into a secure bond that cannot be used for any other purpose than the legitimate expenses involved in running the club and these should be exclusively limited to ground maintenance, matchday costs and player and staff salaries. Any other marketing stuff should be funded separately and not draw on anything generated by football related income.
There should be a salary cap per division, based on the cost of an entire squad and squad size should be limited.
Any b
re: Southampton leisure holdings
[quote="teef2"]I don't think there's anything to cheer about from either side. Yet again it's further evidence of the unsustainability of the ludicrous salaries paid to players and staff compared to the income a club actually generates.
I have no problem with billionaires bankrolling clubs, it's their money and that is their prerogative. It should be mandatory that no club, or holding concern, is able to finance a club through the use of any loan arrangement.
Furthermore anyone investing in a club should be made to put that money, up front, into a secure bond that cannot be used for any other purpose than the legitimate expenses involved in running the club and these should be exclusively limited to ground maintenance, matchday costs and player and staff salaries. Any other marketing stuff should be funded separately and not draw on anything generated by football related income.
There should be a salary cap per division, based on the cost of an entire squ
re: Southampton leisure holdings
I also have no problem with Million/billionaires putting money into football clubs. Not so happy (as in Pompey's case) when they take money out of football clubs. :blue:
On the subject of fan owned clubs and success. I'm not at all sure about this but aren't some of the top German sides fan owned, or city sponsored or some such. I am sure the German football model is somewhat different to the UK but hazy on the details.
Anyone up on this?
Wonder why Mr.Liebherr wanted a British club rather than a German one? Is there more money to be made in the Premier League rather than the Bundesleague? (spelling :D )
Always been told you can't make money owning a football club, so England/Germany shouldn't make a difference. :?
re: Southampton leisure holdings
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiswickmart
Shows how easily confused I am. I thought the reason SFC went into admin was that it was deemed separate from SLH?
Complete opposite of that Proc.
"Although the rules of the Football League state that a 10 point deduction would only be incurred if the club went into administration, an enquiry reported that the finances of the parent company and the club were linked to an extent that they were practically the same company/club."[/quote]
Correct... and when Marcus Liebherr took over he purchased the ground for around 15m, and payed off all debts associated with the club IN FULL he did not purchase SLH at all. B)
Time to put them socks away Jis XD
re: Southampton leisure holdings
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiswickmart
Shows how easily confused I am. I thought the reason SFC went into admin was that it was deemed separate from SLH?
Complete opposite of that Proc.
"Although the rules of the Football League state that a 10 point deduction would only be incurred if the club went into administration, an enquiry reported that the finances of the parent company and the club were linked to an extent that they were practically the same company/club."[/quote]
Yes. Thought that wasn't exactly the wording but my point remains. If that meant SLH could not cover (or be used, or set against, or distinct from)the Debts/Assets of SFC then the debts must also have been against SFC since they were considered to be one and the same, hence SFC went into Admin. If those debts were cleared when the club was sold then how can these SLH debts be the same debts again :?
re: Southampton leisure holdings
Quote:
Originally Posted by proclaimer
Shows how easily confused I am. I thought the reason SFC went into admin was that it was deemed separate from SLH?
Complete opposite of that Proc.
"Although the rules of the Football League state that a 10 point deduction would only be incurred if the club went into administration, an enquiry reported that the finances of the parent company and the club were linked to an extent that they were practically the same company/club."[/quote]
Yes. Thought that wasn't exactly the wording but my point remains. If that meant SLH could not cover (or be used, or set against, or distinct from)the Debts/Assets of SFC then the debts must also have been against SFC since they were considered to be one and the same, hence SFC went into Admin. If those debts were cleared when the club was sold then how can these SLH debts be the same debts again :
re: Southampton leisure holdings
Quote:
Originally Posted by proclaimer
Shows how easily confused I am. I thought the reason SFC went into admin was that it was deemed separate from SLH?
Complete opposite of that Proc.
"Although the rules of the Football League state that a 10 point deduction would only be incurred if the club went into administration, an enquiry reported that the finances of the parent company and the club were linked to an extent that they were practically the same company/club."[/quote]
Yes. Thought that wasn't exactly the wording but my point remains. If that meant SLH could not cover (or be used, or set against, or distinct from)the Debts/Assets of SFC then the debts must also have been against SFC since they were considered to be one and the same, hence SFC went into Admin. If those debts were cleared when the club was sold then how can these SLH debts be the same debts again :
re: Southampton leisure holdings
Recall the administrator Begbies Traynor saying that all creditors had been paid in full.
If that's not the case then I must have been misinformed.
re: Southampton leisure holdings
Quote:
Originally Posted by PonyFiddlerReturns
Well, at least we cut our cloth accordingly rather than continue to throw Monopoly money around pretending it wasn't happening >:)
Let them have their 'field day' will it alter the fact that we're 8th in the Premier League while they have nothing but Division 4 bed blocking to look forward to?
TRULY COSMIC !!!! :D XD XD
Funny how the GLDDs are crowing about 8th in the PL when they thought Pompey should not be proud of their superior record. League positions are transient
League titles and FA Cup wins are in the record books. Who's sh1tting on their own now ?
re: Southampton leisure holdings
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiswickmart
Shows how easily confused I am. I thought the reason SFC went into admin was that it was deemed separate from SLH?
Complete opposite of that Proc.
"Although the rules of the Football League state that a 10 point deduction would only be incurred if the club went into administration, an enquiry reported that the finances of the parent company and the club were linked to an extent that they were practically the same company/club."[/quote]
Yes. Thought that wasn't exactly the wording but my point remains. If that meant SLH could not cover (or be used, or set against, or distinct from)the Debts/Assets of SFC then the debts must also have been against SFC since they were considered to be one and the same, hence SFC went into Admin. If those debts were cleared when the club was sold then
