if all the bigger company is is a holding company for the football club

then this clearly is a loophole. That is, the debts have essentially been incurred by Southampton FC - presumably on unsustainable wages, transfer fees et. Precisely the kind of thing this rule was brought in to stop happening.

Whereas if the debts have been incurred largely on other businesses, then I agree with you - no reason why Soton FC should be penalised, particularly.

Which is the case here?

Posted By: Tricky Hawes, Apr 1, 08:42:50