Points Deductions

[SaintNeil90]

With Luton being crippled by huge points deductions. Saints getting a handicap of -10 and now Chester City being deducted 25 in their first season in the conference is it not time that these points deductions are reconsidered.

 

Whilst teams at the top of the premier league are spending millions of pounds, the teams that are struggle financially get penalised. Yes ok there is an argument about poor management of football clubs but surely clubs should be protected in some way rather than crippled further!

 

It just doesnt make any sense.

[Leicestersaint]

It is totally ridiculous - but then football is run by totally ridiculous people. A bit like the country.

[Toadhall Saint]

It always amazes me that the only option is to kick you when your down. I can't see what purpose it serves TBH.

[krissyboy31]

At least we're not Livingston, who have been relegated SL3.

[eurosaint]

It seems to be a case of the FA displaying their power against the weakest within their midst ! Fair enough some clubs do profit through administration but others do everything to avoid the problems then get clobbered on top !!!

It's not an easy one but I do get the impression that there is one rule for the rich and another for the poor !

[WealdSaint]

Doubtless when one of the "major" clubs, or one which has the "right" contacts at the FA goes into admin the points deductions will be reconsidered.

[Micky]

With Luton being crippled by huge points deductions. Saints getting a handicap of -10 and now Chester City being deducted 25 in their first season in the conference is it not time that these points deductions are reconsidered.

 

Whilst teams at the top of the premier league are spending millions of pounds, the teams that are struggle financially get penalised. Yes ok there is an argument about poor management of football clubs but surely clubs should be protected in some way rather than crippled further!

 

It just doesnt make any sense.

 

I would agree totally. It seems quite inappropriate that clubs that go into administration are penalised in this way - they need assistance from the governing bodies, surely - not a kick in the bollux.

 

No club sets out to achieve administration - it is a consequence of a series of events that lead to such things. As I understand it, Luton were docked points as well for 'financial irregularities' as well, but even with those charges levelled against them - surely they do not deserve to be hounded from the league.

 

I think the powers that be should remember the fans part in all of this too - we are the life blood of the club. Do we deserve to be punished by the league because our Board were incapable of running a business as a going concern - I think not.

 

Yes there should be penalties for administration - but those penalties should be weighed against the sequence of events that caused the club to go under and not just meted out as a 'one punishment fits all' system.

[Toadhall Saint]

It seems to be a case of the FA displaying their power against the weakest within their midst ! Fair enough some clubs do profit through administration but others do everything to avoid the problems then get clobbered on top !!!

It's not an easy one but I do get the impression that there is one rule for the rich and another for the poor !

 

No change there then - thats one of life's unwritten rules.

[Verbal]

As I understand it, Luton were docked points as well for 'financial irregularities' as well, but even with those charges levelled against them - surely they do not deserve to be hounded from the league.

 

Actually it was worse than that. The new regime at Luton reported the financial misdemeanours of the old regime after studying the books. The FL responded by punishing the new owners.

 

Brilliant - but what do you expect from an organisation led by a dimwit with an deeply unpleasant political record for mendacity?

[Flyer]

Football would be a farce without these deductions, youd have have the teams overspending each season and then going into admin to wipe the debts.

 

Id rather have the badly run clubs penalised rather than the well runs ones.

[krissyboy31]

Football would be a farce without these deductions, youd have have the teams overspending each season and then going into admin to wipe the debts.

 

Id rather have the badly run clubs penalised rather than the well runs ones.

 

But they wouldn't get the funding/loans in the first place. The reason so many are struggling now is because the banks have tightened the purse strings and if they did away with the points deduction rules, the banks/lenders would be forced to tighten even more, which would in turn, force clubs to live within their means.

[Colinjb]

There needs to be rules which would discourage clubs from over-reaching financially. As such I back the idea of points deductions.

[Victor]

We have lost 10 points. A lot of people, and presumably a fair number of local good businesses, have lost a lot of money from our clubs mismanagement.

 

We are now debt-free.

 

I don't think we should complain too loudly, only ask for punishment to be meted out on an equal basis, not on which club you are or what influence you have with the FA etc..

[Verbal]

Football would be a farce without these deductions, youd have have the teams overspending each season and then going into admin to wipe the debts.

 

Id rather have the badly run clubs penalised rather than the well runs ones.

 

I'm sorry but that's too complacent by half. The Luton example is a pretty good illustration of that. The fact that football clubs fall into administration has everything to do with the insane economics of the game. To take one example, the blindingly high wages dangled in front of players at the top - £250,000 a week offered to a defender with a bad back! - invariably trickle down to wage demands further down the food chain. Hence our problems, I suspect, in getting new signings in that are of the quality to get us out of this league.

 

The pressures on football clubs are immense and have never been greater. The solution to these problems does not lie, ultimately, in punishing smaller, less powerful clubs, but in tackling the rich and powerful and forcing the Man Citys and Chelseas of this world to put their house in order for the greater good of the game.

 

Will that happen? No, if it's down to the FA...

[Micky]

There needs to be rules which would discourage clubs from over-reaching financially. As such I back the idea of points deductions.

 

As do I. But the point that I was making is that the punishment should fit the crime. If a club deliberately sets out to achieve administration in order to 'clear the decks' then they deserve to be penalised.

 

However, as in our case, where we took reasonable measures to try to avoid administration and remain solvent by playing youth players, loaning out experience and reducing the wage bill, then this should be considered before punishment is decided.

 

I just feel that the Football League should be trying to maintain the confidence of it's membership - not looking to offload every club that finds itself in difficult circumstances.

[dubai_phil]

There is a much simpler and more equitable solution.

 

Any club falling into financial problems does so because of incompetent LEADERSHIP.

 

It is those people who should be punished. It requires work with the Government to make it an offence to over reach ones financial capacity in football.

 

The Directors should be 1) Banned from holding ANY Director level appointment for a minimum of five years, and

2) owner/shareholders who allowed it to continue should be stripped of their shares and the equity held in trust for a period of 3 years and then re-sold with the proceeds going to the CLUB

 

The FANS of Leeds & Portsmouth benefitted from football above their level of financial input, BUT did WE really see any benefits? Did Stockport or Chester or Luton?

 

No.

 

If the penalties apply to those who caused the pain they would think twice

[The Kraken]

As do I. But the point that I was making is that the punishment should fit the crime. If a club deliberately sets out to achieve administration in order to 'clear the decks' then they deserve to be penalised.

 

However, as in our case, where we took reasonable measures to try to avoid administration and remain solvent by playing youth players, loaning out experience and reducing the wage bill, then this should be considered before punishment is decided.

 

I just feel that the Football League should be trying to maintain the confidence of it's membership - not looking to offload every club that finds itself in difficult circumstances.

 

Fair enough, but can you suggest a better alternative method to points deductions? A method that is not just a slap on the wrists but which would actually serve as a dterrent for clubs not to over stretch themselves? I really can't think of any better way.

 

Points deductions are in no way an ideal punishment, as they usually serve to punish a club for a previous regime's financial mismanagement. However, I do think they are the best of a bad bunch of options. Yes, they punish the club rather than the individuals responsible, but they also reward the other clubs who do exist on a more secure financial footing. And they also hopefully serve as a deterrent to perhaps a small number of clubs to resist fans' clamour for instant success and operate within their known budgets.

[saintds]

What annoys me the most about the points deduction system is that it tends not to be the people whose decisions put the club in that position in the first place that get punished. They can walk away without penalty while the club is left to rebuild itself. I accept, however, that, financially speaking, the former senior management of our club and many other clubs have had their fingers burnt. But is it enough to say that is the only punishment they should face?

 

As things stand it's only the fans that get punished. And the stupid thing is, as much as I hate this system, I can't think of a better way of doing things.

[Saint_Jonny]

Just to even it up a bit, seeing as we got battered with the FA's biggest stick, why didnt stockport county? I know its probably been covered on here before but i'd like to know all the same.

[derry]

Just to even it up a bit, seeing as we got battered with the FA's biggest stick, why didnt stockport county? I know its probably been covered on here before but i'd like to know all the same.

 

They took them off last season but they had too many points to be relegated.

[Saint_Jonny]

Oh yes I remember now. Thanks. Phil raised some good points above, it should certainly be the financial leaders of the club that should be punished, not the paying man in the street.

[Micky]

Fair enough, but can you suggest a better alternative method to points deductions? A method that is not just a slap on the wrists but which would actually serve as a dterrent for clubs not to over stretch themselves? I really can't think of any better way.

 

Points deductions are in no way an ideal punishment, as they usually serve to punish a club for a previous regime's financial mismanagement. However, I do think they are the best of a bad bunch of options. Yes, they punish the club rather than the individuals responsible, but they also reward the other clubs who do exist on a more secure financial footing. And they also hopefully serve as a deterrent to perhaps a small number of clubs to resist fans' clamour for instant success and operate within their known budgets.

 

Unfortunately no..! I am no Legal Eagle - but Phils measures (above) would go some way to making those in the boardroom act with a little more due diligence to finances as opposed to 'gambling for success'.

 

I'm not saying that it's the perfect solution - but if individuals were made more accountable for thier management decissions in the boardroom (as pitchside managers are subjected to), and a few of them got the bullet - then perhaps clubs would be encouraged to run a tighter ship.

[saint_bert]

What gets me is how the big clubs can pay astrinomical transfer fees and wages when, they are all or at least the majority of them, in hundreds of millions in debt!!

 

That's where it's wrong

[red&white56]

Football would be a farce without these deductions, youd have have the teams overspending each season and then going into admin to wipe the debts.

 

Id rather have the badly run clubs penalised rather than the well runs ones.

 

I think you overlook a very important point - teams like Chelsea lose a lot of money every year on an operating basis - they continue to survive because a rich man puts his hands in his pocket and covers the annual debt. That's not responsible management of a football club. Why isn't that punished in the same way that going into admin is ? What's type of behaviour is the punishment of pointsdeduction supposed to discourage ?? As others have said this is not equitable response to poor management from the FA.

[Micky]

What gets me is how the big clubs can pay astrinomical transfer fees and wages when, they are all or at least the majority of them, in hundreds of millions in debt!!

 

That's where it's wrong

 

Ahhhh yes Bert - but this is considered 'managable debt'. In other words they are living within thier means because they are guaranteed revenue from Sky, Sponsorship and thier 'sugar daddies'. Because of this banks will also afford them silly overdraft facilities.

 

The problem arises once they are relegated from the Premiership (ala Newcastle United), they get less Sky money and hence less Sponsorship money (ala Newcastle United), or when thier 'sugar daddy' wants out (ohhh ala Newcastle United again...!).

 

At this point - the debt becomes unmanagable and reality kicks in.

 

Many Premiership clubs have been 'gifted' money by thier benefactors in the form of 'interest free loans' - god help any of them should they wish to walk away from the club with that money repaid.

Edited 6 August, 2009 by Micky

[saintjinksie]

With Luton being crippled by huge points deductions. Saints getting a handicap of -10 and now Chester City being deducted 25 in their first season in the conference is it not time that these points deductions are reconsidered.

 

Whilst teams at the top of the premier league are spending millions of pounds, the teams that are struggle financially get penalised. Yes ok there is an argument about poor management of football clubs but surely clubs should be protected in some way rather than crippled further!

 

It just doesnt make any sense.

 

Its Leicester's fault, blame them. They went into admin, came out again thus being able to bring some players in, and got promoted.

[saintbletch]

As do I. But the point that I was making is that the punishment should fit the crime. If a club deliberately sets out to achieve administration in order to 'clear the decks' then they deserve to be penalised.

 

However, as in our case, where we took reasonable measures to try to avoid administration and remain solvent by playing youth players, loaning out experience and reducing the wage bill, then this should be considered before punishment is decided.

I just feel that the Football League should be trying to maintain the confidence of it's membership - not looking to offload every club that finds itself in difficult circumstances.

 

I broadly agree with this but others on here I'm sure would cite what some would see as previous reckless spending. Others still would say that we now have a club that is free of debt, with many creditors disadvantaged and an owner who has picked up an absolute bargain with infrastructure that will continue to give us an advantage over the clubs around us for seasons to come. So there does have to be a penalty.

 

I wrote to Mawhinney suggesting that in these troubled economic climes the footballing authorities should be more lenient. But I didn't get a response.

 

Personally I would favour a system whereby promotion is not available to a club that falls into administration for a set number of seasons but otherwise they start on zero points.

 

I think that would be fairer and would not send some clubs into the spiral of debt and relegation that I think we certainly will see. We were VERY VERY lucky.

[Flyer]

I think you overlook a very important point - teams like Chelsea lose a lot of money every year on an operating basis - they continue to survive because a rich man puts his hands in his pocket and covers the annual debt. That's not responsible management of a football club. Why isn't that punished in the same way that going into admin is ? What's type of behaviour is the punishment of pointsdeduction supposed to discourage ?? As others have said this is not equitable response to poor management from the FA.

 

Id love for nothing more than that to happen but I dont see how you can stop it except maybe to have a debt limit on each division and if you owe more than that, you get relegated and it how I think France works with their clubs. Chelsea will however be royally screwed when he leaves as everything he puts in now is a loan and they owe hundreds of millions to him.

 

The only deduction Ive disagreed with was some of Lutons, the club was taken over, the new owners went to the FA to inform them of some dodgy dealings of the past, they were then slapped with more deductions even though all the dodgy directors had left the club and got away with it, the new owner who went by the book got punished. It would have been fair to ban the previous directors from football and not impose more deductions.

[VectisSaint]

Just to even it up a bit, seeing as we got battered with the FA's biggest stick, why didnt stockport county? I know its probably been covered on here before but i'd like to know all the same.

And still, after all the debate on here, people cannot tell the difference between the FA (Football Association) and the Football League. We did not get hammered by the FA, we got hammered by the Football League. The two are not the same, indeed the FA and the FL have at times in the past been bitter enemies. One of the reasons the PL Clubs do not get hammered is because they are subject to the rules of the FA who run the Premier League, whereas the CC, L1 and L2 are subject to the rules of the FL.

 

Incidentally I don't have a problem with the points deductions, but I do have a problem with the people that got us into the situation getting away with it, with no punishment, not even being banned from football for life. The points deductions though should be applied consistently, and not applied differently depending on finishing position.

[SFC Forever]

Why can't the clubs be limited to paying wages equal to an agreed (nationally) percentage. In fact if FIFA were to make it a condition of qualifying for any competition they rule over the big clubs would lose a lot of their power. FIFA being the ruling body over football worldwide, means that there would be a world wide safety cushion. The bigger clubs would still have the advantage but to a far smaller degree.

TV companies money should also be shared more equally among the counties clubs. A % similar to 35, 27.5, 22.5 and 15 could be something worth looking at. I would even suggest taking a % for the counties to help grass roots football.Why should a club that has spent 120 million be allowed such an advantage over poorer clubs.

[Saint Fan CaM]

There is a much simpler and more equitable solution.

 

Any club falling into financial problems does so because of incompetent LEADERSHIP.

 

It is those people who should be punished. It requires work with the Government to make it an offence to over reach ones financial capacity in football.

 

The Directors should be 1) Banned from holding ANY Director level appointment for a minimum of five years, and

2) owner/shareholders who allowed it to continue should be stripped of their shares and the equity held in trust for a period of 3 years and then re-sold with the proceeds going to the CLUB

 

The FANS of Leeds & Portsmouth benefitted from football above their level of financial input, BUT did WE really see any benefits? Did Stockport or Chester or Luton?

 

No.

 

If the penalties apply to those who caused the pain they would think twice

 

 

An absolutely first class post Phil and exactly what I was about to type, so thanks for saving me the effort.

 

I would liken the present situation to one of us going into an Apple store to buy an i-phone and then 6 months later someone telling us that we have to have it downgraded in specification because the design company over-reached its design budget to provide a better product. It wouldn't happen because there are consumer laws that protect us. So where's the protection for FC supporters from poor FC management?! Yes, there needs to be sanctions against excessive spending and poor financial management, but not in a manner that hurts the life blood of the sport - the supporters.

[Toadhall Saint]

Spot on Dubai and Saints Fan Cam.

[saintbletch]

Why can't the clubs be limited to paying wages equal to an agreed (nationally) percentage. In fact if FIFA were to make it a condition of qualifying for any competition they rule over the big clubs would lose a lot of their power. FIFA being the ruling body over football worldwide, means that there would be a world wide safety cushion. The bigger clubs would still have the advantage but to a far smaller degree.

TV companies money should also be shared more equally among the counties clubs. A % similar to 35, 27.5, 22.5 and 15 could be something worth looking at. I would even suggest taking a % for the counties to help grass roots football.Why should a club that has spent 120 million be allowed such an advantage over poorer clubs.

 

Isn't that s a bit too idealistic?

 

Nothing wrong with ideals but realism means that none of this is likely to happen soon. I agree that some form of adjustment has to happen but these are businesses not footballing 'clubs' now and as such you can't place restrictive market conditions on a business. It won't work and in some cases it's just not legal.

 

I like the idea of a spending cap for each league and perhaps outside of the Premiership it might work. But if the top clubs believed they would be losing their ability to generate wealth and to then spend it to ensure they continued to generate more wealth than others, they would pick their toys up and form their own league. The formation of Premier League is an example of exactly this in action.

 

Formula One recently tried to impose a cap on spending and when the governing body went too far the teams exerted their power and threatened a breakaway. The result was back tracking by the FIA.

 

Also, and I could be wrong on this, but I think UEFA has power and jurisdiction over English clubs. FIFA's power is in the rules of the game not the structure and management of the leagues.

 

Something needs to happen but I fear that we will have to get closer to Armageddon and see some large clubs in significant peril before there will be sufficient agreement to make it happen.

[Dark Munster]

Football would be a farce without these deductions, youd have have the teams overspending each season and then going into admin to wipe the debts.

 

Id rather have the badly run clubs penalised rather than the well runs ones.

 

 

Don't know about Luton, but certainly Leeds got everything they deserved.

 

And hopefully P*mp*y, after they go into administration, will get deducted 500 points (carried over to the next seasons) for foul and disgusting irregularities involving gun-running money.

[S-Clarke]

There is a much simpler and more equitable solution.

 

Any club falling into financial problems does so because of incompetent LEADERSHIP.

 

It is those people who should be punished. It requires work with the Government to make it an offence to over reach ones financial capacity in football.

 

The Directors should be 1) Banned from holding ANY Director level appointment for a minimum of five years, and

2) owner/shareholders who allowed it to continue should be stripped of their shares and the equity held in trust for a period of 3 years and then re-sold with the proceeds going to the CLUB

 

The FANS of Leeds & Portsmouth benefitted from football above their level of financial input, BUT did WE really see any benefits? Did Stockport or Chester or Luton?

 

No.

 

If the penalties apply to those who caused the pain they would think twice

 

Completely agree with that - really would make so much more sense.

 

As has been said...the club can suffer for years and years to come, yet the directors and board members who got the club into the mess can swan off into another high payed job. Stinks tbh.

[eurosaint]

No change there then - thats one of life's unwritten rules.

 

Mais oui mon fils, c'est la vie !!

[David Strover]

They are not punishing the clubs they are punishing the supporters.

[dubai_phil]

Completely agree with that - really would make so much more sense.

 

As has been said...the club can suffer for years and years to come, yet the directors and board members who got the club into the mess can swan off into another high payed job. Stinks tbh.

 

Let's list some of those who should have been banned from being a Director of ANY UK based company for 5 years..

 

[Doctoroncall]

I wrote this when Lowe thought he'd found a loophole but it still applies...

 

 

To date, FORTY clubs have gone into administration and I cannot see the current regulations making any impact to keep clubs from going under. Some might say, it's the responsibility of the directors to run it properly and endure the consequences, however, those that cause the problem are often the ones that do not suffer.

 

The regulations should be changed so that the directors are more accountable for their actions, and it should be used to reduce the risk of a club folding in the first place, for example:

 

# A more expansive fit and proper test for owners

 

# A bond payable by the directors and held by the FL should financial difficulties arise.

 

# Accounts should be submitted once (perhaps twice) a year to the FL so that checks can be made of the financial health of the club.

 

# If a holding company has a football club as a subsidiary company then the other interests need to account for a significant amount of turnover/income of the parent company for it to be considered a separate entity.

 

 

However, there are going to be clubs that fold, but hopefully fewer than has happen, any regulations should make sure the club (in administration) should not gain an advantage from doing so, either through relegation and/or player sales rather than the messy points deduction.

[Smirking_Saint]

Not really read the posts so really sorry if this echoes other peoples sentiments.

 

However, the points deductions only really damage the fans, most of the time those originally in charge that drag the club's down get away without impact. Generally leaving the clubs in a far worse situation then was there originally.

[Torrent Of Abuse]

Surviving administration has probably changed my views somewhat :-)

 

A club living beyond its means IS cheating. The fact that our so-called leaders were so bad at it that they managed to attract the penalty without actually generating any of the success that a club like Leeds did is (sadly) immaterial. If I take part in a race but take illegal performance-enhancing chemicals, I will get banned regardless of whether I still finished in last place.

 

I agree that it hurts the fans most though, and the point deduction process should carry with it a ban for the directors (so bye bye Ken Bates and Peter Risdale). It's surely the most obvious thing to do.

 

Unfortunately I think the points deduction is the blunt instrument used to enforce the law against clubs who really did gain an advantage through debt (like Leeds). As with all laws, if you make them strict to catch the crooks, you will sometimes hurt the innocent - and if you make them loose to protect the innocent, you will sometimes set the guilty free. That's life, Im afraid.

 

Personally I think that all the TALK we have heard about the evils of debt should actually be backed up by real actions. If a club takes on exorbitant debts, that should automatically attract a point deduction. If spending exceeds a percentage of income, that's a deduction. There is no sense in letting clubs take all the steps which will lead to failure and THEN punishing them. We can see Liverpool doing everything that the League and FA warn against and gaining the unfair advantage in the process. If the knew that this reckless spending had to be offset against an automatic point deduction, then they might have to weigh up whether the risk is worth it.

 

A club would be able to spend only within it's means (and for the well-supported clubs that is still an expensive habit) in order to fund its transfers or else be docked points. The playing field would be levelled. Smaller clubs would have at least a passable chance. Big clubs would (through necessity) have to stay solvent. Only the most reckless would go out of business.

 

And it would never happen because there are too many vested interests and too few running the game with the guts for any fight save the one where the little guy is on the ground, waiting for the punishment to stop...

[FMPR]

There is a much simpler and more equitable solution.

 

Any club falling into financial problems does so because of incompetent LEADERSHIP.

 

It is those people who should be punished. It requires work with the Government to make it an offence to over reach ones financial capacity in football.

 

The Directors should be 1) Banned from holding ANY Director level appointment for a minimum of five years, and

2) owner/shareholders who allowed it to continue should be stripped of their shares and the equity held in trust for a period of 3 years and then re-sold with the proceeds going to the CLUB

 

The FANS of Leeds & Portsmouth benefitted from football above their level of financial input, BUT did WE really see any benefits? Did Stockport or Chester or Luton?

 

No.

 

If the penalties apply to those who caused the pain they would think twice

 

Bit of double standards there in my eyes.

 

When times were good and you thought you could afford it you boys paid £30mish for a stadium however within a couple of years you get relegated and your income streams drop significantly and you struggle to balance the books which as well all know resulted in admin for you and ML taking you over for £12m odd and now being debt free.

 

I am sure clubs (like Pompey for one) are looking at Southampton and saying jammy bastards as they have bought a decent stadium for around £10m which is a tad cheaper than the market rate and now have the benefits of being able to entice punters with appropriate pricing to maximise th ecapacity you have.

 

So in a nutshell, Southampton spent on infrastructure and came out with a stadium after admin and Portsmouth spent heavlly on players and have come out with there name on the FA Cup, being brutally honest I would much rather have invested the money we spent on infrastructure at Portsmouth rather than the players pockets but we have seen some fine footballers over these past 3 years.

 

So before you start pointing the finger at others I suggest you reflect on how you have overextended yourselves and come through rosey at the other end.

[The9]

I don't have a problem with the points deduction when its applied evenly and fairly against all clubs in similar circumstances.

 

The problem occurs when those similar circumstances don't merit the same punishment.

 

How, for instance, have we ended up 10 points adrift of Stockport at the start of this season ? It's totally unfair when you consider that they went into admin after us, and the punishment in their case served as absolutely no deterrent whatsoever - and they're STILL better off than us as a result despite being "more successful" in avoiding relegation.

 

I agree entirely that under the current system there should be a points deduction for clubs going into admin as a deterrent, but the very nature of the punishment serves to kick a club when they're down and leaves it open to criticism. Ideally the punishment should be meted out when clubs are actually overspending, not when they fail afterwards.

 

So I guess the only solution in that case is a swathe of financial regulations including salary capping as a percentage of turnover and de facto penalties for breaking it - but all THAT does in a market where Man U's merchandise dwarfs Wigan's, is widen the chasm between the haves and the have-nots.

 

So as far as I can tell, the only real solution is to adopt the MLS model for club ownership, and have all the profits from everything pooled and evenly shared (you know, like it USED to be pre-Premier League). However, as that would stuff the Prem as a brand leader (because the salary capping and limited budgets would mean all the top players would end up in Spain or Italy), that's not going to happen either.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Bit of double standards there in my eyes.

 

When times were good and you thought you could afford it you boys paid £30mish for a stadium however within a couple of years you get relegated and your income streams drop significantly and you struggle to balance the books

 

So before you start pointing the finger at others I suggest you reflect on how you have overextended yourselves and come through rosey at the other end.

 

Our gearing over that period would not have been excessive, it did not all happen within a couple of years, whilst in the premiership you again will find our books balanced very well, didn't balance too bad during the first season in the championship(I believe), our problems started when we went for promotion and we experienced the high wages 'blip' many years after the stadium was built

[Doctoroncall]

Bit of double standards there in my eyes.

 

When times were good and you thought you could afford it you boys paid £30mish for a stadium however within a couple of years you get relegated and your income streams drop significantly and you struggle to balance the books which as well all know resulted in admin for you and ML taking you over for £12m odd and now being debt free.

 

I am sure clubs (like Pompey for one) are looking at Southampton and saying jammy bastards as they have bought a decent stadium for around £10m which is a tad cheaper than the market rate and now have the benefits of being able to entice punters with appropriate pricing to maximise th ecapacity you have.

 

So in a nutshell, Southampton spent on infrastructure and came out with a stadium after admin and Portsmouth spent heavlly on players and have come out with there name on the FA Cup, being brutally honest I would much rather have invested the money we spent on infrastructure at Portsmouth rather than the players pockets but we have seen some fine footballers over these past 3 years.

 

So before you start pointing the finger at others I suggest you reflect on how you have overextended yourselves and come through rosey at the other end.

 

I think that is the general view of fans that haven't investigated the detail. The stadium costs were reasonable easy to pay under the mortgage repayment scheme, so nothing to taxing even for a CCC side.

 

Relegation saw an income stream of ~40m down to ~15m. That's a huge drop and for a club like Saints a radical approach to either try for promotion in the first season or major changes to the playing staff to adapt to the costs in the CCC. Neither approach was taken and so we stumbled on.

[angelman]

I really do think that 25 or 30 points deduction is ridiculous. 10 or 17 is manageable and is a big handicap and therefore should be a deterrent. There should be rules in place to stop teams getting themselves into these situations, but as it does not affect the worst debtors then it is not really a fair system. I have always thought that debt should be linked to turnover, and that way it would stop teams such as Chelsea, United, Liverpool, Man City, Real Madrid etc etc running their business in what really is an unsustainable way ie without rich backers who don't mind taking a hit, they would be bust. I believe Bayern Munich is run at a profit, has low ticket prices and is competitive for top honours, so it can be done. As has been said, no team gets into such dire financial situations on purpose.

 

But does anyone really care? Football beneath the Premiership seems to be an annoyance rather than anything else. In the old days the lower league clubs would be good feeders for the 1st Division teams, but not these days. All these clubs do, is take money away from those in the Premiership (what is it 80% to the Prem and 20% for the rest of football including the non league). This has all come about as a result of Bosman, which I have mixed views on. On the one hand it has ruined lower league clubs' income, but on the other, why should a player be "enslaved" to a club.

 

If those at the top of the chain think that half the teams in the Premiership are an annoyance, why should they, with their undue influence give 2 hoots. Let them go and join a European League, but when that goes into administration, don't let them come back in. If a team from the bottom of the Prem goes into admin, it will be interesting to see what happens. Personally I think that they will be punished in line with current rules. I suppose we might see this soon with our friends down the road. But if it happened to, say, Liverpool, you can rest assured that the QCs will be rolled out and there would be one hell of a court battle.

[Jimmy]

I don't have a problem with the points deduction when its applied evenly and fairly against all clubs in similar circumstances.

 

The problem occurs when those similar circumstances don't merit the same punishment.

 

How, for instance, have we ended up 10 points adrift of Stockport at the start of this season ? It's totally unfair when you consider that they went into admin after us, and the punishment in their case served as absolutely no deterrent whatsoever - and they're STILL better off than us as a result despite being "more successful" in avoiding relegation.

...

So I guess the only solution in that case is a swathe of financial regulations including salary capping as a percentage of turnover and de facto penalties for breaking it - but all THAT does in a market where Man U's merchandise dwarfs Wigan's, is widen the chasm between the haves and the have-nots.

 

Agreed - if Stockport didn't take the measures we did in playing the youth team for a season, then they effectively avoided relegation by carrying on spending, and took the administration knowing that they would probably be in the same league if the worst did happen. By doing our best to avoid administration by playing the youth team, we took a double whammy of administration and relegation. Any points deduction should be applied at the point the club went into administration.

 

I agreed with a wage cap as well, but I’m sure some clubs would find a way around it – by paying a salary and “gifting” money or assets (such as cars, houses etc) to players. I think it would be difficult to police this.

[OldNick]

There is a much simpler and more equitable solution.

 

Any club falling into financial problems does so because of incompetent LEADERSHIP.

 

It is those people who should be punished. It requires work with the Government to make it an offence to over reach ones financial capacity in football.

 

The Directors should be 1) Banned from holding ANY Director level appointment for a minimum of five years, and

2) owner/shareholders who allowed it to continue should be stripped of their shares and the equity held in trust for a period of 3 years and then re-sold with the proceeds going to the CLUB

 

The FANS of Leeds & Portsmouth benefitted from football above their level of financial input, BUT did WE really see any benefits? Did Stockport or Chester or Luton?

 

No.

 

If the penalties apply to those who caused the pain they would think twice

thats good but as most of the clubs owners seem to be foreign how would that work?

Gaydameks interests are abroad.

[krissyboy31]

thats good but as most of the clubs owners seem to be foreign how would that work?

Gaydameks interests are abroad.

 

They could revoke his residence visa and deport him!

[OldNick]

Bit of double standards there in my eyes.

 

When times were good and you thought you could afford it you boys paid £30mish for a stadium however within a couple of years you get relegated and your income streams drop significantly and you struggle to balance the books which as well all know resulted in admin for you and ML taking you over for £12m odd and now being debt free.

 

I am sure clubs (like Pompey for one) are looking at Southampton and saying jammy bastards as they have bought a decent stadium for around £10m which is a tad cheaper than the market rate and now have the benefits of being able to entice punters with appropriate pricing to maximise th ecapacity you have.

 

So in a nutshell, Southampton spent on infrastructure and came out with a stadium after admin and Portsmouth spent heavlly on players and have come out with there name on the FA Cup, being brutally honest I would much rather have invested the money we spent on infrastructure at Portsmouth rather than the players pockets but we have seen some fine footballers over these past 3 years.

 

So before you start pointing the finger at others I suggest you reflect on how you have overextended yourselves and come through rosey at the other end.

I would have thought being relegated whatever was far greater punishment than you got when your club didnt pay its suppliers.it enabled MM to buy you for non pence and use the bargain to gain promotion not get relegated.Had there also been a -10 at that time you would never have seen the heights as MM would not have touched you.

So not a fair comparison, this is your 2nd time where you are close to admin and so i suggest the club has been run recklessly for 15-20years and so far you have not had the proper santions placed upon it yet.