• Club likely to be placed in administration
• Luton Town lead chorus of criticss
Owen Gibson The Guardian, Thursday 2 April 2009
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 Barc*lays 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 diff*erent 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".
• Luton Town lead chorus of criticss
Owen Gibson The Guardian, Thursday 2 April 2009
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 Barc*lays 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 diff*erent 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".
Comment