Jump to content

Points Deductions


SaintNeil90

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Bit of a historical re-write there though.

 

IF you look into detail at the history and the accounts post relegation, the old PL regime ATTEMPTED to reduce the wage costs. (At great displeasure to the fans).

 

That then resulted in the (messed up) hostile takeover. During THAT period, the Directors of the club spent around 7million on NEW players in a GAMBLE to get back into the PL.

 

That 7mil was the parachute payment, which is designed to help while the relegated team cuts their costs. HOWEVER, that 7mil came with a HIDDEN cancer - ludicrous wages.

 

Our eventual admin came about not because we spent that 7mil, but because we spent it on players on extremely high wages "The PL quality player argument" who were on 3 to 4 year contracts.

 

As a result, our COSTS last season were around 20million, while our INCOME was around 10 million. Who's fault was THAT? It wasn't the long term debt that crushed us, it was the OpEx, HUGE difference.

 

Our fall from grace WAS burdened by the high costs of the stadium, however it was the decisions of ALL the post relegation "Officers of the Company" that led to the atrocious financial management in the past two seasons.

 

Now, I am happy to concede that the financial impropriety got us a play-off game, but the key point is that a CCC side can expect to have a revenue of between 10 and 15 million in an average season, so ANYONE who allows a WAGE bill of around 12mil MUST be held accountable for those decisions.

 

Would Wilde, Dullbloke, Hone, Hoos and even Crouch have been So gung ho with money in that time IF they had run the risk of losing control of their OWN businesses or even going to jail? O

f course not.

Would Lowe even have come back, no of course not (Oh how we wish though!).

 

The fans (all of us) demanded that we spent that money, as the ONLY riposte was ever about PR and Spin, NOBODY could believe the admin would happen and many thought we would be better off with it (which we eventually were)

 

The point is that WE got a penalty that WE deserved under the rules. We will suffer for another year, fair enough, but the OTHER clubs, like Bournemouth, Luton, Chester? Why should they KEEP getting hit and MORE importantly, WHY should their hangers on (eg Mostyn) STILL be allowed to be involved? That is wrong and the penalty system is unbalanced.

 

As for the Skates - you go into admin then the likes of Storrie WHO sanctioned the spending and the borrowing can stay there and not get any punishment - wrong

 

(Oh and BTW that rant was NOT a pro/anti one but an all of them one!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chester are my local team. They are in a real state. To be honest this could well be the final straw for them. I could go on for hours about events that have conspired against them, but to be honest I don't see the point. My gut feeling is that they should just call it a day. A sad way of looking at things but when you're in the position that they are it seems pointless continuing.

 

The frightening thing is this. Obviously I'm a Saints fan. As a child my Grandad took me to Luton Town and I had a season ticket there in the late 80's. Living so far from Southampton makes it difficult to get to home games as often as I'd like, so I go and watch my local team - Chester City. I'm beginning to think that I may be a Jinx!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chester are my local team. They are in a real state. To be honest this could well be the final straw for them. I could go on for hours about events that have conspired against them, but to be honest I don't see the point. My gut feeling is that they should just call it a day. A sad way of looking at things but when you're in the position that they are it seems pointless continuing.

 

The frightening thing is this. Obviously I'm a Saints fan. As a child my Grandad took me to Luton Town and I had a season ticket there in the late 80's. Living so far from Southampton makes it difficult to get to home games as often as I'd like, so I go and watch my local team - Chester City. I'm beginning to think that I may be a Jinx!

 

Have you also been to Stockport and Darlington recently ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the points deduction. I have thought about this due to our plight, I think if a team enter's administration then it should enter what you could term 'football league special measures'. Which would be that every footballers contract reverts to a basic 'football league contract', this will be set once by the FL and clubs and an appropriate vechicle agreed to uplift it each season. Naturally the footballers renumeration will be less than their original contracts, so the well paid will look for transfers. The punishment to the club will be the loss of the talent and this loss will mirror the gain they got from over purchasing the talent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are two seperate issues here. The first is the FL rules.The princple of points deductions IS sound as its designed to ensure fair competiton - eg to discourage clubs form gambling on success by over extending themselves. In a way its designed to stop clubs going under as a result of over enthusiastic and naive owners who are happy to gamble the clubs fortunes without thinking of the consequences - and ultimately its the fans that suffer... so these rules are fair.

 

The problem that we faced was craeted by the huge disparity in revenue between the premiership and the rest. The Sky millions.

 

What we need to remember is that we did NOT, gamble our future by stupid borrowings and spening daft amounts on players and wages, we ran a tight ship and lived within our means and did all the responsible things that the FA and governing bodies would encourage; investing a strong youth academy and in a new stadium - something that became a necessity if we wanted to have a reasonable revenue given that we had no choice but to go all seater AND as a result of the rule changes that meant gates were no longer shared... In a nutshell we kept our books balanced and only invested what we could afford - an example to all of a well run club.... BUT this huge disparity between the prem and FL means that without drastic measures at the expense of football, relegated clubs without the support of benefactors millions are always going to struggle... If that had been the only reason for our administration, I would have said it was unfair - because we were penalised by rules set up to stop FL clubs gambling on success, not double penalise relagted prem clubs who already lose a competitive edge by needing to sell off high earners and most of the prem squad to start with.

 

However, Wilde with his promised millions and Crouch going aong with it, DID spend beyond our means on a do or die attempt at promotion. Had we not spent that money and avoided the expensive signings that were unsustainable, we could say we were hard done by, but as we did take a gamble, the reality is we did exactly that which the FL rules are trying to stop clubs doing. Lets not forget, it was not teh stadium loan that dragged us over the edge - that was managable if we budgeted accordingly, it was the wage bill and thus the losses that were increasing the overdraft... and then teh bank pulled the plug.

 

The irony as many have pointed out is that had say Lowe decided to take a big gamble, borrowed 30 mil and let Strachan spend as he saw fit, we might still be in the prem, albeit with say 60 mil in debt.... fans would be happy - but is that responsible management or living the dream? The problem is a system that allows clubs to spend huge amounts of borrowed cash in the prem without any controls, in an effort in most cases just to stand still.

 

The system is fecked, and the sad truth is that those who could do something about either have no balls or too much self interest to level the playing field

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A FL solution instead of points deductions?

 

1. How about this for every £ a club spends o a transfer fee and wages it must lodge 50p into a secure trust. this money is ONLY available to the club. So if a rich benefactor gifts a club serious millions he also has to gift 50% into the trust which he can NOT get back - this mony can only be drawn if a club is releagted to support EXISTING contracts, thus allowing the club to avoid debt accumulation following relegation

 

2. NO club can borrow for transfers or wages

 

3. Borrowing on infrastructure allowed but maximum should be based on affordabilty based on projected revenues two divisions lower than the one the club is in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the points deduction is it penalises the club and supporters, but doesn't really penalise the people who caused the problem in the first place.

A far more effective penalty would be that all of the directors of any club entering administration are prevented from becoming directors of any club in the league for the following X years. Thus, any club entering administration would need to change its directors before the beginning of the following season, as otherwise the club's registration would be prevented. The number of years a director would be 'banned' for would increase if the club failed to come out of administration, or failed to pay back all of its outstanding debts etc. This way, the club and fans are not penalised, but the directors have a very big reason to avoid admin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?[/QUOTE]

 

I think you forgot self rightious pomposity as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many excellent well thought arguments expressed on this thread; a change from some of the rants elsewhere!! In particular, I think "Jimmy" (post 47) makes the valid note that points deductions should occur at the time of Admin taking place for everybody. Some posters have rightly drawn attention to the vicious treatment of weaker clubs like Bournemouth, Chester and Luton. Their fans have certainly suffered, while in some cases certain directors survive! I agree that failed directors should be banned from Football ownership or directorship for a long period.

Incidentally has anyone noticed that Dyer, BWP, S John, Surman,McGoldrick and Ewell were not relegated last season-just the rest of us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many excellent well thought arguments expressed on this thread; a change from some of the rants elsewhere!! In particular, I think "Jimmy" (post 47) makes the valid note that points deductions should occur at the time of Admin taking place for everybody. Some posters have rightly drawn attention to the vicious treatment of weaker clubs like Bournemouth, Chester and Luton. Their fans have certainly suffered, while in some cases certain directors survive! I agree that failed directors should be banned from Football ownership or directorship for a long period.

Incidentally has anyone noticed that Dyer, BWP, S John, Surman,McGoldrick and Ewell were not relegated last season-just the rest of us!

 

And would expect that more than one of that lot got a nice pay rise this year as well.....

 

(But not Euell - he'll never need one!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

in most parts it is managable debt

 

break it down further...some could be equally amazed that you pay to have sky telly and go on holiday when you have a mortgage to pay for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

We've heard all the arguments about Saints' case and the FL didn't accept them, but WHO are they really punishing. The CLUB ?

well until ML came along we didn't have a club. The interim Board made things much worse and left us with an even bigger overdraft.

Rupert Lowe & Co. came and went again...so too were the management team (allowing for Mark Wotte's gallant face-saving exercises). Most of the players who weren't out of contract disappeared (except KD). The young talents were sold (Dyer. McG, and Surman) the remainder were Academy lads and a couple of disenchanted Poles, who were still under contract.

 

One can understand that the people " responsible " for this fiasco are long gone, but none of them has admitted "responsibility " but there is no-one else to take the blame.... except US...the fans.

 

Shame on you Football League..the very people you seek to serve are those getting punished.

In a " proper " court of law, it would be like sending innocent people to jail !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that if the Football League were really interested in curbing clubs expenditure then they could easily adopt a simple 'Formula One' style spending cap - that will never happen because (as in F1) the richer clubs will want to maintain their competitive advantage vis-a-vis the poorer ones , this is the way of the world unfortunately .

 

The 'Parachute Payment' demoted EPL clubs receive also distorts the proper functioning of the League - I would suggest a useful reform would be that clubs in receipt of this payment should be restricted to spending these monies on securing the clubs financial position only (reducing debt ... etc) rather than on signing more players in a desperate attempt to immediately regain their former EPL status .

 

With regard to the points deduction system as this is a quasi-judicial process I see no good reason as to why proper judicial practice's should not be employed - a few ideas :

1 - All sanctions imposed should be subject to a proper independent review process without fear of FL retaliation against the appellate .

2 - Punishments should be made flexible - ie points deductions could be suspended or spread over several seasons in deserving cases .

3 - Sporting sanctions are currently applied only on clubs that 'overspend' and subsequently fall into Administration , if you overspend but get promoted to the EPL as a result there is no punishment - in fact you get rewarded with SKY TV money . I would suggest this cannot be right in principle .

 

The arguments for introducing a wage cap for players are well known and quite convincing , although I do not intent to repeat them here this could prove a rapid and relatively pain-free route to putting the game back on a stable financial footing without resorting to the current contentious and deeply flawed 'Sporting Sanctions' regulations .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...