I read the article in The News where it was reported that you had written to the Football League in an attempt to get them to rescind the 10 point deduction given to Portsmouth Football Club.
You are apparently under the misapprehension that the 10 point penalty was further punishment for the same "crime." If The News has reported your comments accurately, then it is interesting and somewhat revealing that you choose to call it a crime, as much of the recent activities of Portsmouth Football Club have involved people who have been subjected to criminal investigations and indeed court appearances. But of course, I'm sure that you meant it as a figure of speech.
Nevertheless, your conclusion that they have been punished twice for the same thing, shows that you have misunderstood the reasons for the additional points deduction and had you taken the trouble to research the points penalty properly, you would have found that it was in fact given because they effectively had not settled the CVA from their previous administration. This was deemed by the FL to be the same as exiting administration without a CVA, which is punishable with a points deduction.
In fact, it is arguable that the Football League have been rather lenient with Portsmouth Football Club and that the penalties could have been much more stringent, as this was their third administration, the second within a two year period and normally that would have attracted additional penalties. Indeed there are precedents of other clubs like Leeds, Luton and Bournemouth for example, who have suffered stiffer penalties for arguably lesser offences.
But apart from your lack of understanding of the rules of the Football League, I also take issue with your conclusions regarding the fairness of the situation. You state that the FL are penalising their ambition. This will presumably be the same ambition that drove them to spend massive amounts of money they didn't have, to buy the FA Cup and to gain an advantage over their rivals who only bought players within their financial means.
And when the youngsters growing up as their fans need to be set an example to help their understanding of fair play, then that example should be one of profligate spending without the resources to support it? Because when it all goes wrong, they can rely on the leaders of their local Council, or their local MPs to tell them that it wasn't the fault of their football club and how dreadfully unfair it is to punish them.
And why is it, that the local Council leader and the local Members of Parliament are seemingly too ready to make excuses on behalf of the football club, whilst ignoring the suffering that has been inflicted on those owed money by them that they will have to write off as unrecoverable debts? Should you not also be representing the interests of local businesses, schools and charities who have all been cheated out of the money that PFC owed them, not to mention the millions of pounds owed to the Exchequer in unpaid taxes; money that could have been spent on hospitals, teachers, social services etc, in Portsmouth.
So in conclusion, it appears that it might have been better for you to stay away from matters that you don't understand, or where your motives are questionable. There is even a growing body of opinion from amongst the club's supporters that the punishment was fair and deserved. The more sensible and decent of the club's fans are ashamed by the way that the club has behaved, accumulating such massive debt levels and having most of it written off via administration. But you act as an apologist for the club, with not a word of condemnation for their behaviour, with no acceptance that they should be punished for it. No wonder that the general public have such a lack of respect for the political establishment.