Ex Northampton Chairman arrested

10 Point penalty being touted around I read

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-35411230

EX chairman

Title amended by me.

Can't see why this would fall on the present owners as a penalty. Anyway we want to win this league by being better than Northampton (every feckin thing crossed there because I don't think we are) but id rather come second to a better team than win by rules of default.

Amsterdamage wrote:

Can't see why this would fall on the present owners as a penalty.

That's what happened at Luton as far as I remember, in any case, the legal wheels grind too slowly for any penalty this season surely.

Amsterdamage wrote:

Can't see why this would fall on the present owners as a penalty. Anyway we want to win this league by being better than Northampton (every feckin thing crossed there because I don't think we are) but id rather come second to a better team than win by rules of default.

I'd rather come first. Nobody remembers who came second in life

harvetheslayer wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Can't see why this would fall on the present owners as a penalty. Anyway we want to win this league by being better than Northampton (every feckin thing crossed there because I don't think we are) but id rather come second to a better team than win by rules of default.

I'd rather come first. Nobody remembers who came second in life

exactly

So would I obvs but not by that mechanism, morals innit.

Amsterdamage wrote:

Can't see why this would fall on the present owners as a penalty. Anyway we want to win this league by being better than Northampton (every feckin thing crossed there because I don't think we are) but id rather come second to a better team than win by rules of default.

It wouldn't be by default it would be because Northampton cheated.

If teams (us included when it was our turn) did not recruit players they were unable to afford they would not be sanctioned and would not suffer as a result of those sanctions.

In a way it's like the West Ham/Tevez business. Tevez, though ineligible, was signed anyway and scored the goals that kept West Ham up at Sheffield Utd's expense. He should never have been on the pitch for them. Likewise if a team goes into admin they have done so through over-spending. That, in turn, means they have at least one player in their squad that they cannot justify and given the Football Creditors First rule "football" is basically stealing from the unsecured creditors who will get stiffed. It's cheating. Everybody might do it but it is still cheating.

If Northampton loses a title or a promotion or is relegated as a result of a points deduction then it serves them right - just like it served us right when we went through it.

Football clubs deserve no sympathy here. None at all. It's all very well "showing ambition" but basically it's like a kid who just wants wants wants all the time. Of course it wants - we all want. The reasonable among us realise that you can't always have no matter how much you want it. You have to earn it and pay for it not just demand it or take it anyway you can.

Your points would have a lot more relevance if it was the present owners who had cheated and that's my point, this feels a bit like you getting a kicking because your wife cheated on you.

I still don't agree.

There's all sorts of scams that could be used to transfer ownership. If the new owner was to have no liability for what went before how long before some dodgy character did the dirty and then transferred ownership to his wife or brother or son? Or set a company off-shore to take ownership where nobody even knows who owned it. Bishop International.

Due dilligence. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware.

The present owners have taken on a club bulked up illegally. It's akin to an athlete doping and then stopping. Fine. They're clean now but the muscling up and stamina gained by the doping is still there and they are still gaining as a result.

Is there a connection between the past and present owners?

No idea.

What difference does it make either way?

I felt aggrieved when we had the ten point penalty and subsequent relegation, Northampton have had a dodgy owner who is no more, the current setup seem to be not connected to the old one hence I think a penalty would be harsh. I still can't see how the present setup benefits from the action of the previous owner. At the end of the day it's the fans of the clubs that suffer for the actions of previous owners. If the present owners inherited a team of fully paid up players from the previous owners then it would seem I have missed the point and will happily stand corrected but I'm not sure they have.

harvetheslayer wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Can't see why this would fall on the present owners as a penalty. Anyway we want to win this league by being better than Northampton (every feckin thing crossed there because I don't think we are) but id rather come second to a better team than win by rules of default.

I'd rather come first. Nobody remembers who came second in life

I keep telling my wife that....

Dick Trickle wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Can't see why this would fall on the present owners as a penalty. Anyway we want to win this league by being better than Northampton (every feckin thing crossed there because I don't think we are) but id rather come second to a better team than win by rules of default.

I'd rather come first. Nobody remembers who came second in life

I keep telling my wife that....

Amsterdamage wrote:

I felt aggrieved when we had the ten point penalty and subsequent relegation, Northampton have had a dodgy owner who is no more, the current setup seem to be not connected to the old one hence I think a penalty would be harsh. I still can't see how the present setup benefits from the action of the previous owner. At the end of the day it's the fans of the clubs that suffer for the actions of previous owners. If the present owners inherited a team of fully paid up players from the previous owners then it would seem I have missed the point and will happily stand corrected but I'm not sure they have.

How could you feel aggrieved at our 10 point penalty? We ran up £17m debt speculating on the WC and over-paying players. It was years before the shit hit the fan that Stapleton claimed we were running at a sustainable loss and from there things went down hill. We were paying close to, if not more than, 100% of turnover on wages alone... Either the board pays the accumulated debt off (it didn't) or you go bust (we did). Nothing unfair about it. Was the club negligent, incompetent and/on possibly corrupt? Certainly. Nobody to blame but ourselves unless we want to go Big Picture and complain about the massive wealth distortions in the game and the lunacy of a jaundiced spread of what finance there is. Which is fair enough if you do but the rules was rules as things stood and we all knew what they were.

As for Northampton... I suppose it depends on where that £10m went. If the ex-chairman just trousered it and did a runner that's one thing but if it was spent in any way on the club then it strengthened, indirectly at least, the players they could field. And that is cheating and if those players are still at the club or have been sold or have helped the club improve league position, maintain league position or not slip as far down the league as they might have without them (and Northampton weren't far off our depths as I recall) then the new owner benefits or has benefitted from an artifically elevated league position and so benefits from the cheating even if he did not cheat himself. Due dilligence. Caveat emptor. If he hasn't done his homework and is liable for someone else's wrongdoing then that is his tough shit. He should not have been so stupid.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

I felt aggrieved when we had the ten point penalty and subsequent relegation, Northampton have had a dodgy owner who is no more, the current setup seem to be not connected to the old one hence I think a penalty would be harsh. I still can't see how the present setup benefits from the action of the previous owner. At the end of the day it's the fans of the clubs that suffer for the actions of previous owners. If the present owners inherited a team of fully paid up players from the previous owners then it would seem I have missed the point and will happily stand corrected but I'm not sure they have.

How could you feel aggrieved at our 10 point penalty? We ran up £17m debt speculating on the WC and over-paying players. It was years before the shit hit the fan that Stapleton claimed we were running at a sustainable loss and from there things went down hill. We were paying close to, if not more than, 100% of turnover on wages alone... Either the board pays the accumulated debt off (it didn't) or you go bust (we did). Nothing unfair about it. Was the club negligent, incompetent and/on possibly corrupt? Certainly. Nobody to blame but ourselves unless we want to go Big Picture and complain about the massive wealth distortions in the game and the lunacy of a jaundiced spread of what finance there is. Which is fair enough if you do but the rules was rules as things stood and we all knew what they were.

As for Northampton... I suppose it depends on where that £10m went. If the ex-chairman just trousered it and did a runner that's one thing but if it was spent in any way on the club then it strengthened, indirectly at least, the players they could field. And that is cheating and if those players are still at the club or have been sold or have helped the club improve league position, maintain league position or not slip as far down the league as they might have without them (and Northampton weren't far off our depths as I recall) then the new owner benefits or has benefitted from an artifically elevated league position and so benefits from the cheating even if he did not cheat himself. Due dilligence. Caveat emptor. If he hasn't done his homework and is liable for someone else's wrongdoing then that is his tough shit. He should not have been so stupid.

Yah yah I get all that about it being wrong running the club like the nwo did but I feel aggrieved that the club suffered after the nwo. In effect the nwo got off lightly or scot free whilst the club and therefore the fans paid the price. Fwiw I never advocated them getting us that far in debt and was very critical of it at the time, I just wish we could find a mechanism that punishes the crap owners rather than the fans of the club. I feel there should be a better way it's not that I don't understand anything.

That's the whole insolvency process at fault though.

When Brent bought in Argyle was worthless because the football debt remained but the club carried on more or less the same entity as it was before: mostly same players, same management (or could have been), same kit, same stadium, same name, same division, same fans sitting in the same seats paying the same to get in...

We were unlucky in that Brent decided not to put anything in. A fair purchase arrangement would have seen him put in enough to clear all the debt but he didn't. Instead he just kicked the can down the road and more or less mortgaged that debt against future income. That was his decision alone but that decision has caused the long hangover.

The only fair way is for everybody to shit out and the club to fold completely and start again but I'd imagine the majority of our fan base, and probably even the majotirty on here, would not be in favour of that.

Personally I don't think it would have been the complete disaster that it was painted as being if it had happened but that's all hypothetical now and we'll never know. In contrast we know exactly what Brent's ownership has meant and there is plenty to be critical of there.

Watch out boys, your desperation showing.

Not mine matey.

Bit like buying a house, must do the full survey.

The whole original concept of the Limited Company is now discredited beyond hope. What used to be a half serviceable idea is nothing more than a scam opportunity. Football clubs are perfect with their dumb customer base, where years of future performance under a different legal entity are stolen by the current directors.

Of course the legal entity that accrues debts must be responsible for them, but these vehicles no longer have any touchable capitalisation worth a spit. The mad leverage without sufficient REAL commited and vulnerable equity is the problem, and the law should be changed. But it won't be.
Just another part of a bankrupt culture. God bless the co-op and it's divi. Community at it's best.

Lord Biro wrote:

The whole original concept of the Limited Company is now discredited beyond hope. What used to be a half serviceable idea is nothing more than a scam opportunity. Football clubs are perfect with their dumb customer base, where years of future performance under a different legal entity are stolen by the current directors.

Of course the legal entity that accrues debts must be responsible for them, but these vehicles no longer have any touchable capitalisation worth a spit. The mad leverage without sufficient REAL commited and vulnerable equity is the problem, and the law should be changed. But it won't be.
Just another part of a bankrupt culture. God bless the co-op and it's divi. Community at it's best.

Bang on the Money indeed. So simple just to walk away.

If I were in charge I would try and return some of the sporting values to football and remove the business element. We need to start looking at all football clubs as community assets. I would also cap player wages at say £500k a year for a start. I know the best will always earn more than the worst but when we have shite players in the lower leagues earning £10k a week this is just ridiculous. I would also get tickets down to around a tenner a game and get more people in. The money for tv should be a lot less and shared around terrestrial companies again making the game more accessible to more people. The clubs should then be banned from going massively in debt which would then prevent the shit or bust scenario we see now. The rules now are a farce. I wouldnt ban the likes of Abramovitch from owning a club but would ban him from injecting billions into it. Any money that big clubs make should be spent in the local community thereby anchoring the community ethos.
The premier league is stupidly wealthy but we can't manage to have a national scheme to promote new talent, no centres of excellence strategically placed around the country and our best young starlets warming the bench whilst the next £15m Ronaldo hopeful takes his place in the team. The current setup not only stifles our national team development, but grass roots and lower league football to boot. Money is not the answer to everything but in this case it's the answer to the question "what is wrong with our national game?"