Confusion over 10pts deduction (2 Viewers)

[Black6Osprey]

I think I would be correct if I said that nearly all on this forum base our opinions on this whole situation on hearsay and media reports rather than any real knowledge.

It amazes me then that nearly everyone in the media seems to be reporting that we need to be in administration by the 4th Thursday in March or have to take the 10pts deduction next season. This is totally incorrect. The rules are very clear.

If admin is achieved by the above date then the pts are deducted immediately no matter what position in the league you are at the time.

If you fail to meet this date you still have until the end of the season to be placed into administration.

However, if you are in the relegation zone at the end of the season (before any pts deduction) then the 10 pts will applied the following season.

If you finish 1pt above the relegation zone (before any reduction) you will take the 10pts this season and be relegated.

In our case if we get 70 pts as long as we are in administration by the end of the season we would take the 10 pts this season and finish on 60 pts.

As I said at the start if the media can't get something printed in black and white reported correctly what hope on all the speculative stuff?

 

---

[Steve.B50]

We may not even be put into Admin !!

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

We may not even be put into Admin !!

Not is SISU pay up-they could end all this now.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

I think I would be correct if I said that nearly all on this forum base our opinions on this whole situation on hearsay and media reports rather than any real knowledge.

It amazes me then that nearly everyone in the media seems to be reporting that we need to be in administration by the 4th Thursday in March or have to take the 10pts deduction next season. This is totally incorrect. The rules are very clear.

If admin is achieved by the above date then the pts are deducted immediately no matter what position in the league you are at the time.

If you fail to meet this date you still have until the end of the season to be placed into administration.

However, if you are in the relegation zone at the end of the season (before any pts deduction) then the 10 pts will applied the following season.

If you finish 1pt above the relegation zone (before any reduction) you will take the 10pts this season and be relegated.

In our case if we get 70 pts as long as we are in administration by the end of the season we would take the 10 pts this season and finish on 60 pts.

As I said at the start if the media can't get something printed in black and white reported correctly what hope on all the speculative stuff?

Yup, that's about it. For the third time: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...g-and-us-losing-10-points?p=393686#post393686

Myself, I'd bet on SISU avoiding Admininstration. As others have commented, expect more twists and turns yet.

 

[Black6Osprey]

Yup, that's about it. For the third time: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...g-and-us-losing-10-points?p=393686#post393686

Myself, I'd bet on SISU avoiding Admininstration. As others have commented, expect more twists and turns yet.

You say it's the 3rd time but I'm not talking about supporters not knowing their arse from their elbow. I'm talking the media. Even last night on the cwr phone in it was mentioned as fact by the presenter that if its not by 28th then it's 10 pts next season.

 

[rupert_bear]

Not is SISU pay up-they could end all this now.

Not sure if just paying up prevents being put into administration. A court will take other things into account, such as on going viability to run the business, baring in mind we have not submitted accounts yet to Companies House as required by law and for the third year running and i'm not sure on the rules/law with foreign companies which SISU are.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

You say it's the 3rd time but I'm not talking about supporters not knowing their arse from their elbow. I'm talking the media. Even last night on the cwr phone in it was mentioned as fact by the presenter that if its not by 28th then it's 10 pts next season.

Did realise you were making a general point - apols if it came across otherwise - you summed up the poistion in plain english, which is an ability that has always eluded me!

 

[SonofErnie]

Administration is an achievement !!!

 

[Gaz]

Really ?


'

 

[wolfie]

If we go into admin. Do we then lose any players on loan? And if so will that leave us with some position on the field where we are not covered? Please forgive my ignorance for not knowing!

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Sorry Osprey60.....hope this helps.

Leeds United filed for administration with only a few days remaining in the 2006–07 season, which automatically triggered a 10 point penalty. This placed Leeds at the bottom of the table and relegated the club, but they were extremely likely to have been relegated anyway. By entering administration during the 2006–07 season, they hoped to avoid starting the 2007–08 season on −10 points. The Football League saw this as a club trying to exploit a loophole and changed the rules. From 2007–08, any club entering administration after the fourth Thursday in March would have their 10 point deduction suspended until the following season. Similarly, if a club were relegated the deduction was also to be suspended until the start of the following season.[21]


On 26 February 2010, Portsmouth became the first Premier League club to enter administration.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22
I see things like this.......We may be having the hearing before the 4th Thursday in March, but if the final decision isn't made till after that date, then the above statement applies...ie= 10 points deduction will be made in the following season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Sorry Osprey60.....hope this helps.

Leeds United filed for administration with only a few days remaining in the 2006–07 season, which automatically triggered a 10 point penalty. This placed Leeds at the bottom of the table and relegated the club, but they were extremely likely to have been relegated anyway. By entering administration during the 2006–07 season, they hoped to avoid starting the 2007–08 season on −10 points. The Football League saw this as a club trying to exploit a loophole and changed the rules. From 2007–08, any club entering administration after the fourth Thursday in March would have their 10 point deduction suspended until the following season. Similarly, if a club were relegated the deduction was also to be suspended until the start of the following season.[21]


On 26 February 2010, Portsmouth became the first Premier League club to enter administration.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22
I see things like this.......We may be having the hearing before the 4th Thursday in March, but if the final decision isn't made till after that date, then the above statement applies...ie= 10 points deduction will be made in the following season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22

 

[wolfie]

Stop repeating ur self

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

I didn't
I didn't
It was the website!
It was the website!:facepalm::facepalm:

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

anyone else having the same problem when the website asks you to "Resend" ?

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Stop repeating ur self

Good idea. Would have stopped him being wrong on the regs twice over.

 

[Noggin]

Sorry Osprey60.....hope this helps.

Leeds United filed for administration with only a few days remaining in the 2006–07 season, which automatically triggered a 10 point penalty. This placed Leeds at the bottom of the table and relegated the club, but they were extremely likely to have been relegated anyway. By entering administration during the 2006–07 season, they hoped to avoid starting the 2007–08 season on −10 points. The Football League saw this as a club trying to exploit a loophole and changed the rules. From 2007–08, any club entering administration after the fourth Thursday in March would have their 10 point deduction suspended until the following season. Similarly, if a club were relegated the deduction was also to be suspended until the start of the following season.[21]


On 26 February 2010, Portsmouth became the first Premier League club to enter administration.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22
I see things like this.......We may be having the hearing before the 4th Thursday in March, but if the final decision isn't made till after that date, then the above statement applies...ie= 10 points deduction will be made in the following season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Portsmouth-22

You see the number 21 on what you posted, thats a citation, if you click that you can see where the information came from, if you follow that link you will see that what you posted is an oversimplification and so you are wrong.

There are 2 sentences after the one you quoted. they change how it affects us totally.

"From next season any club going into administration after the fourth Thursday in March will have their 10-point deduction suspended.

If the club is relegated the points will be deducted from their tally at the start of next season.

If the club stays up the 10 points will be taken off their final total."

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

You see the number 21 on what you posted, thats a citation, if you click that you can see where the information came from, if you follow that link you will see that what you posted is an oversimplification and so you are wrong.

There are 2 sentences after the one you quoted. they change how it affects us totally.

"From next season any club going into administration after the fourth Thursday in March will have their 10-point deduction suspended.

If the club is relegated the points will be deducted from their tally at the start of next season.

If the club stays up the 10 points will be taken off their final total."

Thanks for explaining Noggin. didn't know that!

 

[grego_gee]

If we go into admin. Do we then lose any players on loan? And if so will that leave us with some position on the field where we are not covered? Please forgive my ignorance for not knowing!

No! we'll be fielding a team made up of bank managers, lawyers and accountants!

imp:

 

[Black6Osprey]

Thanks for explaining Noggin. didn't know that!

I wouldn't worry, neither do half the media.

 

[italiahorse]

SISU don't have to pay full amount but just show they are attempting to pay. In fact because they are paying for match day costs they are already doing that. Business as usual after the court hearing ...............

 

[Noggin]

SISU don't have to pay full amount but just show they are attempting to pay. In fact because they are paying for match day costs they are already doing that. Business as usual after the court hearing ...............

If they are attempting to pay and can't that is more reason for admin, not less.

Not that anyone could say with a straight face that SISU are attempting to pay the rent.

 

[Spencer]

If they are attempting to pay and can't that is more reason for admin, not less.

Spot on!

They have to show they have the means to pay, otherwise, they are trading insolvently. They don't actually have to pay - at least not until ordered to but that would take an entirely different court case.

 

[Noggin]

Spot on!

They have to show they have the means to pay, otherwise, they are trading insolvently. They don't actually have to pay - at least not until ordered to but that would take an entirely different court case.

one we already have had havn't we before christmas? meaning ACL could have issued a winding up order, fortunatly they havn't.

 

[Spencer]

one we already have had havn't we before christmas? meaning ACL could have issued a winding up order, fortunatly they havn't.

I didn't believe so - a court asset order (or whatever it is called) is an interim order protecting a party that is "likely in the view of the court" to win a pending court case.

In this regard we haven't been to court yet, more pre-court directions.

 

[Bluegloucester]

I didn't believe so - a court asset order (or whatever it is called) is an interim order protecting a party that is "likely in the view of the court" to win a pending court case.

In this regard we haven't been to court yet, more pre-court directions.

It was a third party debt order, not pre court directions. ACL could have taken the more draconian measure of winding up CCFC

 

[Noggin]

havnt we had a court case that sisu didnt turn up to where they were ordered to pay the rent and to refill the 500k account? or am I misunderstanding, this can all get very complicated. Then there was the statory demand for payment that gave them a month to pay that they missed, allowing ACL to issue a winding up order if they chose to

 

[Skyblue4u]

Can't we just claim the Lester factor and get off Scot free?

 

[Spencer]

It was a third party debt order, not pre court directions. ACL could have taken the more draconian measure of winding up CCFC

It was an interim third party debt order which is awarded by a judge without hearing the parties.

A full hearing will be required before SISU are ordered to pay - it is the basis of English law that each party has the right to present their case in the full facts of the case made against them. We are not at that stage yet - the wheels on these things roll slowly.

 

[Bluegloucester]

It was an interim third party debt order which is awarded by a judge without hearing the parties.

A full hearing will be required before SISU are ordered to pay - it is the basis of English law that each party has the right to present their case in the full facts of the case made against them. We are not at that stage yet - the wheels on these things roll slowly.

They had that opportunity on 5/12/2012,they did not turn up.

 

[grego_gee]

If they are attempting to pay and can't that is more reason for admin, not less.

Not that anyone could say with a straight face that SISU are attempting to pay the rent.

With matchday costs plus the 500k escrow account ACLhave already had 800k for the period they are claiming 1.2m.
Its not the full amount claimed but its double what they said they would accept fot L1 rent.
And its probably more than the administrator would have offered as a restructuring deal!

imp:

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

The Escrow money was legally required to be kept at 500k at all times-it isn't a rent payment in any shape or form. Don't swallow that Fisher bullshit!

 

[Flying Fokker]

The debt continues to build (rent).

SISU had no intention of paying.

 

[grego_gee]

The Escrow money was legally required to be kept at 500k at all times-it isn't a rent payment in any shape or form. Don't swallow that Fisher bullshit!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/escrow

It is a condition of the present rental agreement that 1/2 a million is held in escrow. The money is by definition a payment between two parties held on condition by a third party. If you could see the account I think you would find it was not withdrawn in one chunk but progressively by the rent due over several months.
CCFC may eventually be required to re-establish the escrow, or under the administrator, it may be agreed as inapropriate in todays financial climate. Either way it is a payment from CCFC to ACL for rent, unless there is some clause to say it is a penalty payment of some kind. I have not seen the details of the agreement, but I think that would be very unusual, and it probably would not be called simply escrow if that were the case..

imp:

 

[grego_gee]

The debt continues to build (rent).

SISU had no intention of paying.

CCFC pay the rent.
I believe they have been paying at 1.2m since they were in the prem at the rate agreed for the prem.
Even ACL seem to have acknowledged that they should accept less from a tenant whose income has been significantly reduced.
Arguably if 400k is appropriate for L1, 800k would be appropriate for the Championship. On that basis, in round terms we have overpaid significantly.
If we were to gain promotion this season laugh , and then again to the prem in the following season claping hands, we would have return to a situation that the current rent was agreed for.
Apart from the strict legal situation, is not the fact that ACL would have received the full rent over the period somewhat questionable?

imp: