Sanctions for Clubs entering administration

[Modgull]

Its that time of year again when the forum goes a bit quiet so I thought I would try and liven things up with a rant, a rant that my son puts to me very forcefully.

The rant is - why are Clubs allowed to massively overspend and therefore cheat their way to success and then, when they go bust - causing untold misery for all the poor creditors - they can take a modest 10 point penalty (often, like Portsmouth, when they are already down) and then start the cycle all over again?

His rant was precipitated by the rumour that Rene Howe has been offered a lucrative three year contract by Argyle, something we could never afford to do. Remember, Argyle went into administration owing something like £17M and creditors got less than a penny in the pound from the administration process. Many went bust and one, apparently, was a charity.

And, of course, Portsmouth start next season level with us despite going into administration twice in short order.

When Luton did this they had a 30 point deduction in the following season so where is the consistency?

In Scotland, Rangers had to start again at the bottom but that was because they were liquidated I believe.

Surely, the only way to make Clubs more responsible is to increase the penalties and publish them at the outset (I am not sure if this is already done?)

What do Members of this forum think?

[divingbboy]

If you go into administration, you should be automatically relegated, IMO. If you've already been relegated (Portsmouth, etc), then you should get relegated again. The current penalty is nowhere near harsh enough to dissuade clubs from irresponsible overspending.

[MF68]

Great thread. My view is that the main problem is that the highest earners ie the players are so called "protected creditors" and have to be paid before the tea ladies, painters, plumbers etc

[AustrianAndyGull]

If you go into administration, you should be automatically relegated, IMO. If you've already been relegated (Portsmouth, etc), then you should get relegated again. The current penalty is nowhere near harsh enough to dissuade clubs from irresponsible overspending.

Spot on, i don't know why football rulers make it so easy for these clubs. In addition to your points divingbboy then i'd say if you get relegated because of entering administration then i'd give the club so many months to get their house in order and if they cannot do this by a certain date then relegate them again and again and again until they either pay up or fold. Also if a team goes into administration more than once in a 15 year period or something like that then they automatically fold. Harsh but something needs to be done now as they're all just taking the p*ss.

[divingbboy]

When you've got teams playing on pitches that they've never even paid for, that's taking the p*ss. Yes, I'm talking to you, Argyle.........

[MF68]

Well said Andy. I spent a good while in Scotland and friends of mine up there including Rangers fans said they were glad that Rangers got the punishment they did but could not understand the reason why the English FA were so lenient. Also I do think that it is a FA directive or perhaps PFA directive that make the players a "preferential creditor". What a disgrace !!!!!!!!

[Sunnysideup]

I think you will find that players are "football creditors". Preferred creditors will be those like the banks that have a charge on the ground etc. It's that lovely system whereby whoever take over the club have to guarantee that all outstanding "football creditors" are paid as a condition of obtaining the golden share to play in the league. As an example, Brent will be paying the outstanding bits of transfer fees, wages owed to players etc. off, whilst the likes of the company that laid the pitch, tax man etc can whistle for their money. Very annoying and the taxman will surely oppose this in the courts before too long as they've been looking for the right case to try and set a precedent.

[MF68]

APOLOGIES. Sunnyside you are quite right. Still a F<*>^ng disgrace...........Peter Crouch at Portsmouth for instance.

[Sunnysideup]

APOLOGIES. Sunnyside you are quite right. Still a F<*>^ng disgrace...........Peter Crouch at Portsmouth for instance.

Certainly is....

[Dutchgull]

This is very much a pet hate of mind and if true what the GAWS have offered to Rene it really takes the piss and adds to the long list of reasons as to why I hate Plymouth Argyle.
As least Exeter City had a slight excuse in that they were ripped off by a couple of crooks almost as we were with Roberts but the GAWS just have a ridiculous over inflated image of themselves and spent millions that they did not have chasing that crazy world cup dream.

Where is the incentive to run your club in the correct way and pay your creditors ?

[ferrarilover]

I think you will find that players are "football creditors". Preferred creditors will be those like the banks that have a charge on the ground etc. It's that lovely system whereby whoever take over the club have to guarantee that all outstanding "football creditors" are paid as a condition of obtaining the golden share to play in the league. As an example, Brent will be paying the outstanding bits of transfer fees, wages owed to players etc. off, whilst the likes of the company that laid the pitch, tax man etc can whistle for their money. Very annoying and the taxman will surely oppose this in the courts before too long as they've been looking for the right case to try and set a precedent.

:-|

Tried it, failed. On my phone, so can't be doing with finding the citation, but it was tried and, if memory serves (I only glanced at it briefly about a year ago) it was largely laughed at.

Matt.

[MF68]

The solution is transfer embargos. Crap players or loanees means relegation which is what they deserve. FA are spineless. Perhaps the embargo would be imposed depending on what percentage over the income has been spent................more they overspend - longer the embargo. Only a thought.