Whitey Grandad Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 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. All this is true, but taking a -10 sanction at the end of the season when you know that you are safe is not the same as starting the season on -17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightspark Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 Surely Stockport can be docked a further 15 points for next season, just like we could be if we can't get out of administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 (edited) All this is true, but taking a -10 sanction at the end of the season when you know that you are safe is not the same as starting the season on -17. Why is it not the same? The end result is the same. Neither team was relegated, neither team missed out on promotion. Neither team is any worse off in the League structure than they would have been without the penalty, neither team has really suffered a 'penalty' that makes a difference to their status. I hate all this 'it's not fair' stuff and that is what has led me to poke holes in the logic of these arguments. I just don't see why you all say fair play to Bournemouth for getting away with it but as for Stockport well that's not fair. Edited 5 May, 2009 by Barry the Badger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 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. Unfortunately, that little detail slipped Lowe's mind, because the arrogant Tw*t thought he could get away with the Leisure Holdings Krap Yet more Astute Business Management Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alkasteve 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? No - the 10 points penalty would apply this season which was the original punishment for administration - the 10 points next season if you're already relegated after a certain date was added on after the Leeds/Boston fun which is probably why it looks bodged - it is. As for legality remember (as the football league is a members club) it was voted in by most of the FL clubs so this is the punishment that they wanted - granted it was brought in to get at Ken Bates but it's only rebounded on everyone else. It might be difficult to undo as well now or at least in the near furture lest certain people complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 Why is it not the same? The end result is the same. Neither team was relegated, neither team missed out on promotion. Neither team is any worse off in the League structure than they would have been without the penalty, neither team has really suffered a 'penalty' that makes a difference to their status. I hate all this 'it's not fair' stuff and that is what has led me to poke holes in the logic of these arguments. I just don't see why you all say fair play to Bournemouth for getting away with it but as for Stockport well that's not fair. Far be it from me to perpetuate a thread that's regurgitating one which was argued to death less than a week ago, but do you not think a club being penalised at the start of the season might find it much more difficult to attract good players with ambition than a side who only find themselves losing the points when the season is all but over and when there's no possibility of signing new players anyway - irrespective of the debts the clubs might have in addition ? Who the hell would have agreed to sign for Luton this season other than the naive or the desperate? They were all but relegated before a ball was kicked -and the only thing keeping Bournemouth competitve was another club (Rotherham?) having a deduction near the amount they had making their task slightly less difficult and giving them some hope of survival. Stockport's deduction is within the rules (unbalanced though they are), and it also won't harm them next season - should Saints exist next season we'll be disadvantaged in trying to attract new players, Stockport might not have any cash either, but they won't have to fork out over the odds to attract players of the quality they want due to potentially being relegation favourites either. All of this is assuming they don't get additional CVA-based deductions, which are also chronically badly managed by the FL due to thecrippling effect they have on clubs recovering from Admin - and should have been looked at at least 3 or 4 years ago when HMRC stopped agreeing to CVAs. It's preposterous that an Inland Revenue policy on Company Liquidation can cause teams to have to start with a five defeat handicap, especially when HMRC haven't agreed to ANY CVAs since about 2005 and everyone has been punished for it. This is the REAL problem, that the League haven't considered this change alongside the 10 point deduction, when the League's last rule change actually coincided with the legal change and was ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITKSaint Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 Pass me the arsenic, woe woe woe. Get over yourselves ffs, embarassment, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoswellSaint Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 Pass me the arsenic, woe woe woe. Get over yourselves ffs, embarassment, Relax. People are having a reasonable discussion about a flawed process. Maybe it has taken us being hit with the deduction to wake up and realise that it is flawed. How could it be right to punish Luton in the way they were - new owners (and the fans) punished for the actions of previous owners. If any club owing tax money can't get an agreement to come out of administration, why do they all get punished further? Why should Stockport's deduction be this season when it has minimal affect on them? A sledgehammer to crack a nut of a couple of teams trying to exploit administration. In our case, the creditors will get less money because we are worth less as a team starting -10 than on zero - how is that fair on them? I don't think anyone wishes ill on Stockport, just sort out the mess the FL have made for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 Why is it not the same? The end result is the same. Neither team was relegated, neither team missed out on promotion. Neither team is any worse off in the League structure than they would have been without the penalty, neither team has really suffered a 'penalty' that makes a difference to their status. I hate all this 'it's not fair' stuff and that is what has led me to poke holes in the logic of these arguments. I just don't see why you all say fair play to Bournemouth for getting away with it but as for Stockport well that's not fair. The issue with Stockport is that they strategically timed their administration to avoid any effect punishment - exactly what Leeds did. With leeds they had their points taken off that season but the FL threw the kitchen sink at them the next so hopefully they will do the same to Stockport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoswellSaint Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 The issue with Stockport is that they strategically timed their administration to avoid any effect punishment - exactly what Leeds did. With leeds they had their points taken off that season but the FL threw the kitchen sink at them the next so hopefully they will do the same to Stockport. From what I've read, that is not the case. Stockport had the rug pulled out from under them by a creditor when they say they were on the verge of lining up new funds. Of course, that could be a smokescreen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 From what I've read, that is not the case. Stockport had the rug pulled out from under them by a creditor when they say they were on the verge of lining up new funds. Of course, that could be a smokescreen. I think we all know that's rubbish, I expect leeds and Boston said the same thing. Hopefully Stockport don't get a CVA and start on -15, we will need all the help we can get to stay up next season. Stockport getting their deserved punishment could be of massive importance to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 The issue with Stockport is that they strategically timed their administration to avoid any effect punishment - exactly what Leeds did. With leeds they had their points taken off that season but the FL threw the kitchen sink at them the next so hopefully they will do the same to Stockport. I don't think that is the issue, the issue as I see it is that the rule is badly drafted. They were brought in as a reaction and changed as a reaction, with out anyone really thinking them through. As someone else said it's a one size fits all rule for a set of circumstances that are completly different in each case. I think the football league is right to apply some sought of sanction, but this is rule is badly drafted and not working. I think Stockport didn't have a hand in the timing but good luck to them if they did. Every team should do everything to try and get around this rule and I hope the new owners of our club appeal the discision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 I think we all know that's rubbish, I expect leeds and Boston said the same thing. Hopefully Stockport don't get a CVA and start on -15, we will need all the help we can get to stay up next season. Stockport getting their deserved punishment could be of massive importance to us. Boston didn't need to say anything, the timing rule didn't apply then. They went in to admin the last 5mins of the season when they were definately down. It just show you the lack of thinking that went on when the rules were written, it didn't occur to the powers that be that a club struggling in football teams may also be struggling financially and could settle for the points loss when it didn't matter. So you can only think that the amount of forethought to the correcting of the rules was equally minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 Boston didn't need to say anything, the timing rule didn't apply then. They went in to admin the last 5mins of the season when they were definately down. It just show you the lack of thinking that went on when the rules were written, it didn't occur to the powers that be that a club struggling in football teams may also be struggling financially and could settle for the points loss when it didn't matter. So you can only think that the amount of forethought to the correcting of the rules was equally minimal. I agree the rules are a mess but Leeds didn't break any rules when they did what they did and Saints didn't when the holding company went into admin. Stockport's loophole is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Well Stockports administrators have just made their manager redundant and arent allowed to employ another one for 6 months. They are in a lot more trouble than just relegation or a points deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madsent Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Well Stockports administrators have just made their manager redundant and arent allowed to employ another one for 6 months. They are in a lot more trouble than just relegation or a points deduction. Stockport are in desperate trouble (but not relegated) and there is a very distinct possibility that they will disappear forever. As a Stockport fan said on the radio, it's ludicrous that Manchester City run buses to take fans from Stockport to the City of Manchester Stadium thus making a small pool of potential fans even smaller. They have to compete against all the other teams in the Manchester conurbation and there isn't much of a pool of fans to pick from in Cheshire. I hope they survive but it won't be easy. If they do survive then I guess they'll have a head coach instead of a manager and maybe a director of football since the manager's position has been made redundant. It sounds bizarre to make that position redundant but it was probably the only way to terminate his contract without too much cost. I'm sure Jim Gannon won't try to get blood out of a stone by claiming constructive dismissal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 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? Alas that we did not do just this. We could have kept Rasiak and John, achieved a mathematically safe place and gone into admin a few weeks earlier 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