Time to scrap points deductions for administration?

I think that this has relevence to both Saints and Pompey fans. The whole issue of points deductions needs to be reconsidered in my opinion. Whilst I agree that there needs to be a form of penalty when clubs negligently or corruptly trade beyond their means, the penalty should strictly speaking to levied against the directors and not the team . I don't think that Portsmouth actually deserve any deduction and Appleton has done a commendable job on threadbare resources. Deducting points does not seem at all appropriate in this circumstance.

The situation would be better dealt with if the distribution of cash within the game was more evenly spread. This would give teams more financial stability and I would like to see some kind of system where there was a degree of proportionality depending upon final league position and which league you are in. At the moment, everything is stacked in favour of larger clubs and even they struggle to get things right. If a club continues to trade knowingly at a substantial loss or knowing that the club is no longer viable, I think the directors need to be more accountable with the posibility of custodial sentences. Deducting the points from the football club targets the wrong individuals and also has a detrimental effect on fans who will see the fortunes of their club suffer. Given that the mismanagement of the club has also resulted in redundancies, I can't see that deducting the points punishes the individuals who unfrotauntely caused Portsmouth to loose so much money.

In Portsmouth's position, the position is compounded by the fact that a series of individuals have been given approval to buy the club when they should not have been allowed anywhere near the game. The FA has not done this the once - this has happened on a number of occasions within the last few years. This has even been acknowledged in writing by the FA and must surely be a breach of any Duty of Care owed? On top of this, the people who have sanctioned the purchase of Portsmouth has subsequently been involved in the two decisions to deduct points. Effectively, they are both the judge and the jury. Grounds for appeal? Portsmouth FC has been a grubby little business for a number of years but the FA have done nothing to ensure that the club cleans up it's act. My guess is this that this is because the problem in endemic.

I also am totally against points deductions. They are totally unfair to everyone. A club can be playing well but be mis-managed financially and then find itself facing relegation. Once in administration, the deduction of points automatically makes it less viable to a potential buyer and more likely that the value of the club will fall. It serves no benefit whatsoever in ensuring that the club remains viable and certainly makes things a lot more difficult. In addition, it also disrupts the league table and will mathematically favour certain other teams due to the fixture list. i.e. Forest have been abject all season but coiuld find themselves avoiding relegation due to non-footballing reasons.

The inability to allow Portsmouth to field a full 16-man squad and limiting them to the possibility of choosing from 14 men is an outrage. They should be allowed to augment the squad with loan players or players on a nominal fee. I can see the league and administrator's position in wanting to ensure that no further losses are incurred but it hands an unfair advantage to those other teams Portsmouth have yet to play. i.e. Portsmouth theoretically fielding a weakened line up. Teams who have played Pompey already will find that their competitors have an advantage when they next play PFC. Football is a sport and , in my opinion, sport is about everyone trying to compete without unnatural advantages. The business aspect must be kept seperate from the sporting one. Again, I don't feel that a points deduction is appropriate.

All in all, deductioning points is not a solution to tidying up the sport. The FA have failed to make football business more viable and have not tidied up irregularities by implimenting these measures. Football clubs remain some of the worst run business in the country and points deductions have not improved the situation. If anything , the situation has become worse since point deductions were implimented. It has caused clubs like luton to trop out of the league and ultimately punishes the fan more than the individuals who should be accountable. I would like to see money distributed more evenly in the sport, see failed /corrupr directors barred from football and a strategy whereby the viability of each and every club is monitored by the FA with effective assessments of potential buyers to ascertain who is fit and proper to own a club. This would be far more effective than deducting points and I would like to see this method of punishment replaced by something that is more appropriate to sporting ideals and hits the individuals who should be accountable. Any thoughts?

 

I just don't see any alternative to a points penalty. Teams in administration wouldn't be able to afford a fine.

 

I don't think that Portsmouth actually deserve any deduction and Appleton has done a commendable job on threadbare resources. Deducting points does not seem at all appropriate in this circumstance.

I think completely the opposite - they have prem players from last year earning a high fortune - most teams in the Championship would love to have their threadbare squad.

On the contrary - they should have blended sme youth players in there also - i dont buy this whole rubbish about only having 14 players - they have a youth system and is high time they lived within their means and used it...all this whining and moaning is getting boring - we put up and shut up with our situation.

Good thread though!!!

 

I have to say that I am pro-points deductions. Yes it punishes the fans and, to a lesser extent, the players - but ultimately those same people may well have benefited more than they otherwise would in the years immediately leading up to their club's financial crisis. (The current situation with Portsmouth is an almost perfect example. Yes their fans have been through hell in the past three years, but them and their players got to experience winning the FA Cup, playing in Europe, and finishing in the top half of the PL only a short time before all of this. And even we benefitted from a nice new stadium don't forget.)

I do think though that greater punishments need to be handed out to the directors who mis-handle football clubs and run them into the ground, whilst most of all greater controls need to be implemented by the football authorities (as not all administration stems from directors abusing their powers, or committing wrongful acts etc). I does often that director's get away scott-free, so I'm completely with you on this one. Action needs to be taken against them in cetain circumstances.

I also disagree that the sporting and business aspects have to kept seperate, as in this day and age, with the sort of money that's in football, I just don't see how that's a viable option. Going back to our nice new stadium, we could comfortably afford the mortgage payments whilst we were receiving the lovely millions which came from being a Premiership team (and subsequently, a Championship team with Premiership parachute payments). So one could certainly argue that it was our on-field performances (ie the sporting aspect) which played a substantial part in our administration. Had we not been relegated, or at the very least had we gained promotion in those first two years in the Championship, then I doubt we'd have ever entered administration. On-field and off-field go together.

Good read though, I too think Appleton is doing a decent job.

 

I agree that the points deductions are ridiculous. You don't help a failing business by raiding its safe, which is indirectly what you're doing to a football club when you deduct points. However, the controls that allow football clubs to be managed are too flexible. There needs to be a higher standard code of conduct, which clubs have to pass - an MOT for the business. It is not enough that they should muddle through somehow, season after season.

Steve Claridge made a good point, on TFLS the other evening. He said that Portsmouth FC [sorry to bring this up Pompey pepys, but it's a very good example] had been in the Premier League for seven years, and had come out of it exactly the same as they went in. No foundations, no infrastructure, no proper investment, no streams of revenue from the corporate side. The club is controlled by different owners, solely owning different parts, and all pulling in different directions. When they came out of their previous administration they didn't learn the lessons of it. They didn't restructure accordingly.

Football clubs are businesses, but they're also slightly different. An engineering company, down the road, could fail, and we'd hardly hear about it. Yet, the engineering business might actually be bigger than the neighbouring famous football club. Football clubs are in a special position, and they're not really allowed to fail. If they are run sensibly, the chances are that they'll survive, and maybe grow at a reasonable pace, but they won't astound the world. And they may not ever do it. But they are encouraged to behave irresponsibly by the media, the fans, and even the football authorities, it appears, because the financial rewards are huge, if they can get to the top, and the controls on how they can get there allow them far too much leeway. Clearly, this present attitude has to stop, or we have to learn to accept the fact that some football clubs will fail, and either rise again, phoenix like, or stay dead and buried in memory. Just like any other business.

 

I was always under the impression that a points deduction was less a penalty imposed on the club in admin, and more a compensation measure for other teams to ensure that points gained over league rivals would be removed and therefore bring the team with points deducted down to a level closer to where they would have been if they had not used their financial advantage - I know it amounts to the same thing in the end, but there is a slight difference.

It is the other clubs who aren't in admin that need the table balancing after an administration event, rather than a slap for the team n administration. Fines or other financial measures don't really work because they don't redress the damage already done to the false league positions achieved by running a club in the wrong manner.

I am of the opinion that administration should mean automatic relegation, which solves the fairness issue, and also means that the club in money trouble does not need to keep fighting to stay in the division and potentially make things worse for their creditors.

 

Optimisticsaint is right, teams that cheat financially are cheating in a sporting sense too, and that has an effect on other teams. It's just not fair that Portsmouth (for example) can stay up paying wages they can't afford while some other team that plays by the rules is relegated in their place.

It has to be perceived that the rewards of financial doping are seen as less than the penalty, and it's even less fair to impose a financial penalty on a club which is bankrupt, so there's no other way really.

 

The main benefit which clubs gain by spending way beyond their means is in terms of points gained, and through this gaining promotions or avoid relegations which they otherwise deserve. The sanction which is applied when it hits the rocks has to be the same. The fit and proper test is a smokescreen. Directors can be pursued by the authorities should they break the law, and be banned from being a director of a company ever again if appropriate. It is sad, but there will have to be some clubs going bust to wake them up to the importance of proper corporate governance. How can it be possible that contracts are offered to players without the necessary clauses significantly reducing their wages in the case of relegation? How can they gamble with the survival of the club by mortgaging it's future against a possible set of results making that commitment affordable in retrospect? How on earth has the football debts first rule not been challenged and overturned? There is much wrong with football, but I can't see a fairer way of punishing the reckless behaviour of businesses which might drive their competitors into oblivion by not playing fair.

 

in my opinion most teams in English football are cheating if your club is losing money year in year out there should be punishment,

but i believe if you are spending money to make your club self sufficient with in a set time period that shouldn't be counted.

 

Off topic can I just ask where the match thread is?

 

So a club that go's into admin recieves no punishment?. I agree with points deduction, itis in place as a warning to clubs that mis manange.

If the deductions etc weren't in place it would be madness. Say a team vastly overspends, gos top because of this. They then go in admin to clear their debts. They could come straight out of it with all their debts reduced(10p in the pound etc) and still top. How is that fair?.

What would stop the team going in admin more then once a season?, it would end up killing of so many business that are connected to football. So nope crap idea i'm afraid. Points deductions are there for a reason.

 

The points penalty should stay. Both Saints and PFC have deserved to lose such through mis-management and other teams in the division are effectively punished otherwise. I note that Poopys stewards and other non-playing staff have still not been paid back wages from 2yrs ago (previous administration) which is shameful and gives you an idea of where CSI really were!

 

If a points deduction is the rule then so be it. However, the straight 10 points is some-thing that could be subject to change. For instance, taking 10 points from team x may affect them more than 10 points from team y.
Take 3 sides that have gone into administration this season.
Darlington are 20th in the Conference, above the relegation zone on goal-difference, as opposed to 16th and 10 points clear.
Pompey are in 22nd in the Championship, 3 points from safety, as opposed to 19th and 7 points clear
Rangers are 2nd in the SPL, as opposed to, erm...... 2nd in the SPL

Perhaps, instead of a set number of points being deducted, the penalty should be x% of their final points tally (rounded up or down to the nearest point). This would make the penalty more relevant to the club's actual status in the table.
Taking last season's Championship table, the mid table sides, (12 & 13th - Middlesbrough & Ipswich) both finished on 62 points. If the admin penalty was set at 16% of the season total, it would make 10 points the 'middle of the road' amount.

 

That is rubbish I'm afraid. "Point's deductions serve as a warning to clubs that mis-manage"? Since December 2004 every English club that has gone into admin has had points deducted yet of the 32 odd clubs that have gone into admin since 1984, 22 of them did so after the first case of points deductions. If deducting points served as a deterant to bad financial management then the amount of clubs which went into admin would have decreased after the that punishment was first introduced, not increased.

The points deductions may serve some role in punishing clubs but it does nothing whatsoever to dissuade clubs from overspending and mis-managing their finances.

 

32 out of the whole football league tho?, if there was no points deduction there would be far far more. So hence it do's serve as warning as such.

 

the points deduction should be in scale to how much money the club have over spent

 

Perhaps, but since many clubs' accounts are never made public, this is unworkable.

 

Look at bolton 90mil in debt, why not go into admin to clear it?. Oh yeah they would get a points deduction and that wouldn't help their religation battle.

Couldn't edit my post for some reason so added this on)