JustMike Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 why did their -10 apply now, for the current season, when ours has to be carried over?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 The penalty always applies in the current season, unless you are going down anyway in which case it carries over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 3 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 3 May, 2009 The penalty always applies in the current season, unless you are going down anyway in which case it carries over. which confuses me because we werent actually relegated when we went into admin. I can understand it carrying over because the march deadline had passed, so why hasnt Stockports carried over too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxi_sopez Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 i think its quite obvious what would be the punishment for us be if we got relegated and then -10 there would be no difference, therefore we have to get the punishment next year.....if stockport were already in the bottom three they would get it next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 3 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 3 May, 2009 i think its quite obvious what would be the punishment for us be if we got relegated and then -10 there would be no difference, therefore we have to get the punishment next year.....if stockport were already in the bottom three they would get it next year but, they too missed the march deadline? And it wasnt really a punishment for them, they were safe already, even with the -10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 (edited) The rule is... Before the deadline it's this season no matter what. After the deadline it's held until the end of the season...Then if you finish bottom 3 it's carried over but if you don't it's applied in the current season. I think it was written like that to close the Leeds / Boston loophole. Edited 3 May, 2009 by Barry the Badger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 3 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 3 May, 2009 The rule is... Before the deadline it's this season no matter what. After the deadline it's held until the end of the season...Then if you finish bottom 3 it's carried over but if you don't it's applied in the current season. I think it was written like that to close the Leeds / Boston loophole. mmm still stinks. So what punishment have Stockport really got? dropped a few places. Is there not further punishements for it happening after deadline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 There are definitely issues like the one you've pointed out. It's all a bit of a mess. If you use the logic of saying well Stockport haven't really been punished you could use the same logic for Bournemouth since they haven't gone down with the -17... The line has to be drawn somewhere. If we could have picked up enough points to be 10 clear of the bottom 3 we could have safely gone into admin too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 3 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 3 May, 2009 There are definitely issues like the one you've pointed out. It's all a bit of a mess. If you use the logic of saying well Stockport haven't really been punished you could use the same logic for Bournemouth since they haven't gone down with the -17... The line has to be drawn somewhere. If we could have picked up enough points to be 10 clear of the bottom 3 we could have safely gone into admin too. I dont agree, Bournemouth started with -17 and have done really well to stay up. Stockport waited until they were safe. Whats to stop teams going through the season knowing they are close to admin, holding on until they are mathmatically safe and then calling it..ala Stockport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 Does anyone know what the "end date" of the season is for admin purposes? Is it the last day of the footballing season (ie. play-off final day presumably for FL clubs)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 ...and it seems hardly fair that Stockport will start the season 10 points above Saints for the same offence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 I dont agree, Bournemouth started with -17 and have done really well to stay up. Stockport waited until they were safe. Whats to stop teams going through the season knowing they are close to admin, holding on until they are mathmatically safe and then calling it..ala Stockport? Well obviously nothing, and why should there be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 There are definitely issues like the one you've pointed out. It's all a bit of a mess. If you use the logic of saying well Stockport haven't really been punished you could use the same logic for Bournemouth since they haven't gone down with the -17... The line has to be drawn somewhere. If we could have picked up enough points to be 10 clear of the bottom 3 we could have safely gone into admin too. I think the issue is Stockport timed their administration so that the penalty couldn't effect their league status - this is exactly what Leeds did. Stockport have got away without punishment - the league's rules stink. We may well be relegated next season because of this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 Personally I think fair play to Stockport for getting themselves to a position where they can take the 10 point hit and stay up. The whole 10 point penalty rule is ****e, but it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 3 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 3 May, 2009 Well obviously nothing, and why should there be? because it goes against league rules??? Whats the point in having a deadline for admin, only for teams like stockport to call admin after they know they are safe. And yes, next season, we start -10 behind stockport for the same offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 3 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 3 May, 2009 Personally I think fair play to Stockport for getting themselves to a position where they can take the 10 point hit and stay up. The whole 10 point penalty rule is ****e, but it is what it is. But thats just it, there are so many backdoors to get out of it, or try to cheat it, like we thought we had done. For me its simple...if you are going to have the -10 points then if you call admin before the march deadline, then its -10 from the current season. Any later then it rolls over to next season, regardless of position. Both ourselves and stockport called it late...next season should be -10 for both of us. Stockport are not imo punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 because it goes against league rules??? Whats the point in having a deadline for admin, only for teams like stockport to call admin after they know they are safe. And yes, next season, we start -10 behind stockport for the same offence. It doesn't go against the rules. The rules have been applied. We were retarded enough to go into admin a couple of days after the cut-off when in relegation trouble already - that's our fault. I agree that it does feel a bit unfair though. What is strange is that these rules were brought in to punish clubs gaining a competitive advantage by over-borrowing. Unfortunately, a lot of clubs will be going into admin for other reasons though. The League would be better off scrapping these rules and introducing proper measures to regulate how clubs borrow and spend money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 The rules are a crock of ****, if there really must be this blunt point loss then its simple, it should just be the next ten points you win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 The rules are a crock of ****, if there really must be this blunt point loss then its simple, it should just be the next ten points you win. But then that opens it up to the same problems, teams who are already down or already safe taking admin so the penalty is less of a punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 3 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 3 May, 2009 It doesn't go against the rules. The rules have been applied. We were retarded enough to go into admin a couple of days after the cut-off when in relegation trouble already - that's our fault. I agree that it does feel a bit unfair though. What is strange is that these rules were brought in to punish clubs gaining a competitive advantage by over-borrowing. Unfortunately, a lot of clubs will be going into admin for other reasons though. The League would be better off scrapping these rules and introducing proper measures to regulate how clubs borrow and spend money. so if we had gone into admin before the deadline then the -10 would have been taken off already? So Stockport go into admin after the deadline and still get -10 for this season, albeit at the end. So my question still is..how have Stockport been "punished"?? Yes the rule sucks and it stinks of Lord whats his face making it up as he goes along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 3 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 3 May, 2009 But then that opens it up to the same problems, teams who are already down or already safe taking admin so the penalty is less of a punishment. yes i agree, so have it that..if you go into admin before deadline..-10 now...if you go into admin after deadline..-10 next season. I really dont see the point in having a deadline if teams like stockport go into admin once they knew they were safe and it not effecting them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 yes i agree, so have it that..if you go into admin before deadline..-10 now...if you go into admin after deadline..-10 next season. I really dont see the point in having a deadline if teams like stockport go into admin once they knew they were safe and it not effecting them Presumably because relegation is considered to be a more serious punishment than starting next season in the same division on -10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 yes i agree, so have it that..if you go into admin before deadline..-10 now...if you go into admin after deadline..-10 next season. I really dont see the point in having a deadline if teams like stockport go into admin once they knew they were safe and it not effecting them Completely agree JM. Albeit we deserve punishment for what we have done, I dont think teams should be able to in affect limit the pain from the punishment they receive. Yes we have both been hit with a -10 point penalty, but ours hurts more than theirs and that is not fair. Teams should as you say be forced to take the 10 points the current season if going into admin before the deadline and forced to apply next season if you go into admin any time after the deadline! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 The Football League have ****ed up the wording of their rules, if you're 10 points above the relegation zone you can basically go into admin without punishment. The wording should obviously be: If you go into admin after the deadline the points deduction will come into effect that season, unless it has no bearing on league status, in which case it will apply the following season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 (edited) But then that opens it up to the same problems, teams who are already down or already safe taking admin so the penalty is less of a punishment. Yes they may be able to reduce the totally effect of the point deduction but you would have to be mathematically relegated with quite a few games to go for my way not to have an effect no effect like Stockport’s punishment has. In reality teams are only really mathematically relegated or safe within the last few games of the season and they are unlikely to win the whole ten points in that season. So they will be affected the next season as well. This just highlights how badly the rules have been drafted, the rules are a sporting punishment to counteract a sporting advantage. So you can gain a sporting advantage by overspending going for promotion paying big wages etc, fail and then go into administration and because you have amassed enough points (due to the sporting advantage you got from the overspending) the punishment wont really affect you, because in reality finishing 14th instead of 8th is no real punishment at all. Against a club who is struggling to get their finances under control, they cut their wage bill, get’s no sporting advantage and so struggles in footballing terms, ends up in a relegation position, loses their battle with the finances and is hit with the punishment of -10 points the following season. Teams go into admin for different reasons and a blunt rule like this does not work. Edited 3 May, 2009 by Fan The Flames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=12776 Why don't you guys sift through the 169 posts on this thread, I think you'll find most of the answers/arguments here ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 Well obviously nothing, and why should there be? Because....... Say a team is close to the playoff positions into the premier league, but have money woes... What is to stop them from not declaring admin until after all the playoffs are completed in the hope that they get promotion and thus the extra cash to 'save' them, or not get promotion and declare admin to wipe out all the debts and start all over again.... Doing that they would then get the -10 at the very end of the season, which might possibly have dropped them out of the playoff places anyway, and thus not only do they technically not really get a punishment, but they deprive someone else of a playoff chance :smt102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 3 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 3 May, 2009 Presumably because relegation is considered to be a more serious punishment than starting next season in the same division on -10. so not only do we get "punished" by relegation, we get further hammered by starting next season on -10 also. It all sucks. Time for a re-think Lord whatshisname Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 Completely agree JM. Albeit we deserve punishment for what we have done, I dont think teams should be able to in affect limit the pain from the punishment they receive. Yes we have both been hit with a -10 point penalty, but ours hurts more than theirs and that is not fair. Teams should as you say be forced to take the 10 points the current season if going into admin before the deadline and forced to apply next season if you go into admin any time after the deadline! I don't think we do deserve the punishment, we have basically got into money worries building a new ground (which benefits the whole footballing community) and being relegated from the prem at same time. It takes time to go from running a premiership outfit to a non prem one and it is financial shock. Ours wasn't frivalous spending. Charlton, Norwich, Southampton all going down. Says a lot about the structure of our leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madsent Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 There are definitely issues like the one you've pointed out. It's all a bit of a mess. If you use the logic of saying well Stockport haven't really been punished you could use the same logic for Bournemouth since they haven't gone down with the -17... The line has to be drawn somewhere. If we could have picked up enough points to be 10 clear of the bottom 3 we could have safely gone into admin too. Bournemouth effectively got docked 27 points and Luton got docked 40 points because both were relegated by 10 point deductions last season. How much more punishment do you want for those teams ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 The league would be better deducting 100 points,this would automatically stick you bottom with no chance to wriggle out of it. -10 points is a nonsense that will only end up punishing some and not others as in our case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redder freak Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 Surely the fairest thing would be for Stockport to have the -10 applied next season, same as us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkThunder Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 ...and it seems hardly fair that Stockport will start the season 10 points above Saints for the same offence! I would not worry - Stockport are in real trouble and a facing a real battle to get out of administration. Having attended the Brighton vs County game with a mate, there was concern that there will face another -17 points for the start of next season - similiar to Bournemouth's deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 I would not worry - Stockport are in real trouble and a facing a real battle to get out of administration. Having attended the Brighton vs County game with a mate, there was concern that there will face another -17 points for the start of next season - similiar to Bournemouth's deduction. Bit like us then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 I don't see how this is fair. Stockport losing 10 points this season doesn't cost them anything at all. You might say they've exploited another LOOPHOLE in the leagues rules. I thought the leagues mandate was to cause as much trouble for its members as possible. Personally, I think fair play to Stockport for spotting the loophole and playing it to their advantage. However, it just goes to show that the league's rules have been applied in such a slapdash manner it essentially one rule for some and another for others. However, because they don't have the profile of us (having been in the Premier League) I doubt very much we'll see anyone else (Mahwinney or other managers for example) crying foul of the application of the rules as they did when it looked like we had exploited another loophole (which incidentally, still remains, despite us being punished). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 May, 2009 Share Posted 3 May, 2009 so not only do we get "punished" by relegation, we get further hammered by starting next season on -10 also. It all sucks. Time for a re-think Lord whatshisname We managed the relegation all by ourselves. The -10 was not needed this season so we get in next instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITKSaint Posted 4 May, 2009 Share Posted 4 May, 2009 We all knew the rules at the start of the season. Show some grit and take it on the chin, all this whining about Stockport is embarrassing, doubly so if things don't go well against them next season. Stockport's -10 points has cost them -10 points, just like it'll cost us -10 points next season. The rules are simple, available to consult and well known to all. zzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkThunder Posted 4 May, 2009 Share Posted 4 May, 2009 Stockport are a perfect example of why trust ownership does not work. The money generated from the trust bought the club from a very unpopular owner on what turned out to be poor terms. The previous owner still owns the ground and takes all money from match day food and drink. The trust ended up owning the club having spent all their money on its purchase but then had no means of generating income or borrowing money. With no assets, they are now desperate for a buyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 4 May, 2009 Share Posted 4 May, 2009 JustMike. I do agree that Stockport have exposed a sort of loophole but as I said the line has to be drawn somewhere. By your logic, Bournemouth's penalty has not affected their league status so have they really been 'punished' either?. If we finish next season in mid table obscurity but more than 10 points off the playoffs it could be said that we wont really have been punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffo Posted 4 May, 2009 Share Posted 4 May, 2009 Is it likely that we will get more points deducted at the beginning of next season? Is it likely we will sign this CVA thing? What other ways could we possibly be deducted even more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 4 May, 2009 Share Posted 4 May, 2009 Is it likely that we will get more points deducted at the beginning of next season? Is it likely we will sign this CVA thing? What other ways could we possibly be deducted even more? If we owe money to the Inland Revenue and we can't clear it in one go we won't get a CVA and will be deducted a further 15. If we don't owe money to them we should be ok. Nobody seems sure if we do or not. Luton got deducted further points for not sticking to the rules re agents payments so we just have to hope there has not been any creative accounting going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 4 May, 2009 Share Posted 4 May, 2009 I think the issue is Stockport timed their administration so that the penalty couldn't effect their league status - this is exactly what Leeds did. Stockport have got away without punishment - the league's rules stink. We may well be relegated next season because of this decision. Totally agree. We're punished for our 'crime' Stockport aren't. No wonder The League don't look after the top flight of football. They are inept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkThunder Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 Stockport did not choose to go into administration - one of their creditors started the process. The club believed that they had found a source to inject funds into the club which has now been lost due to administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 5 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 5 May, 2009 JustMike. I do agree that Stockport have exposed a sort of loophole but as I said the line has to be drawn somewhere. By your logic, Bournemouth's penalty has not affected their league status so have they really been 'punished' either?. If we finish next season in mid table obscurity but more than 10 points off the playoffs it could be said that we wont really have been punished. Yes Bournemouths penalty did affect them, starting the season on -17 must have sucked big time and they got theirs at the start of the season so why then does stockports apply now when both went into admin after the deadline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 5 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 5 May, 2009 We all knew the rules at the start of the season. Show some grit and take it on the chin, all this whining about Stockport is embarrassing, doubly so if things don't go well against them next season. Stockport's -10 points has cost them -10 points, just like it'll cost us -10 points next season. The rules are simple, available to consult and well known to all. zzzzz But they went into admin AFTER THE MARCH DEADLINE that is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torrent Of Abuse Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 There's a lesson to be learnt here: You should draw up truly massive debts building a team good enough to finish 10 points clear of relegation. Then it doesn't matter when you get the punishment. If you slip quietly into administration, you're basically f***ed. True to form we've managed to get a nice big debt whilst still being rubbish. Kudos to the board(s) for managing this masterstroke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintstr1 Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 If as been stated recently any new owners of SFC intend to appeal the 10 point deduction then surely this case with Stockport must help us. How can it be legally correct for two teams who committed the same offence during season 08/09, start season 09/10 in the same division with a 10 point difference. Surely LEGALLY that is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 Yes Bournemouths penalty did affect them. Excuse my playing devils advocate, but did it affect them? They weren't relegated because of it. They didn't miss out on the playoffs because of it. So where's the punishment there? Just trying to show that it's not black and white, the FL have dug a hole for themselves with this ruling and have to draw the line somewhere, it's just that you would draw it somewhere else. I do see what you're saying but by your logic Bournemouths penalty should also now be carried over season upon season until it actually causes them to get relegated or miss promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 I know that if we had stayed up on merit then the 10 point penalty would have applied this season in order to take us down. However I was under the impression that had we stayed up by more than 10 points (enough to stay up regardless) then our 10 point penalty would have been held over to next season. Surely this is the situation that Stockport are in? Or have I misunderstood the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 Bournemouth effectively got docked 27 points and Luton got docked 40 points because both were relegated by 10 point deductions last season. How much more punishment do you want for those teams ? Madsent, you are missing my point. I am in no way arguing that these teams should have harsher penalties, far from it. I think what happened to Luton was disgraceful. What I am saying is that this is far to complex an issue to be covered by 'one rule fits all', so people saying 'it's not fair' are looking at it too simply. To demonstrate that point I'm just saying that Bournemouth haven't actually been punished by the 17 point deduction this season if you extend the logic used on here that says Stockport have not been punished. Yet nobody is complaining that Bournemouth have got away with it with no punishment.... The reason for that is that it's a very very complicated issue, which the FL have made even worse by attempting to apply a black and white rule to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now