Admin penalties

AdamStag

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
8,251
Reaction score
1,605
Points
113
Supports
Mansfield Town
Not one for the Luton fans...

So a club goes into admin and receives the standard 10 points deduction. What happens if a club does so again with a certain period of time, something the FA don't seem to have thought about.

One thought process in the office today from a Leeds fan (of all!) was to have basically a credit check on a club lasting a decade. If you've fell into admin in year 1 of the decade and do so again in year 9 the club faces double the penalty. Sounds fair right?

One of the (very few) things the conference did was to strike down clubs who flouted the rules and went into financial diffcaulties - even completely bypassing Boston down to the northern premier.

What are your thoughts?

Agree penalties should be harsher?
Worried that dodgy owners will take the club for the ride? (Though this should apparently be caught in the fit and proper test)

Thoughts?
 

Kenneth E End

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
5,334
Reaction score
748
Points
113
Supports
Luton Town
It's 12 points now, but I agree with the principles above. Football clubs shouldn't be allowed to tactically enter administration. It should be a nuclear option.
 

AdamStag

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
8,251
Reaction score
1,605
Points
113
Supports
Mansfield Town
Aye.

When did it increase to 12?
 

Pilgrim Meister

Active Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
627
Reaction score
73
Points
28
Location
Coningsby
Supports
Plymouth Argyle
Twitter
@mcleanrj
Personally, even as an Argyle fan, a points deduction should be harsh enough to relegate said club, say -30 to -35 points.

We had joke owners before which has been well documented, but owners without a paddle in the creek of brown stuff shouldn't be able to just place the club into Admin at a convenient time where they should be safe even after a -12 pt deduction (which has happened to other clubs), as it serves no real punishment.

A -30 point deduction could mean the difference between Winning the league and finish just above safety or Play-offs and relegation.

A bigger deterrent is required on joke owners, as harsh as it is on the fans
 

Glasshalffullpools

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
359
Points
83
Supports
Hartlepool
A lot of teams at our level maintain thier support no matter if they are promoted or relegated .... there's been enough sham owners by now for the FA to recognise one for the 'fit and proper' test
 

antn1.b

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
282
Reaction score
25
Points
28
Location
Bognor Regis
Supports
Portsmouth
we got deducted in and out of ours at one point I think. not very often a club manages to do well on the pitch with that going on in the back ground anyway. obviously there are exceptions
 

Kenneth E End

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
5,334
Reaction score
748
Points
113
Supports
Luton Town
Personally, even as an Argyle fan, a points deduction should be harsh enough to relegate said club, say -30 to -35 points.

A bigger deterrent is required on joke owners, as harsh as it is on the fans
I agree to an extent, but its not the fans nor the player's fault that the club itself is up shit street.

In Plymouth's case, I'd argue that there should've been points deductions for each month a club fails to pay players on time, because they're covered by the controversial football creditors rule. Didn't Plymouth go something like 9 months without paying your players? Yet were signing players, which was affecting the league.
 

Pilgrim Meister

Active Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
627
Reaction score
73
Points
28
Location
Coningsby
Supports
Plymouth Argyle
Twitter
@mcleanrj
I agree to an extent, but its not the fans nor the player's fault that the club itself is up shit street.

In Plymouth's case, I'd argue that there should've been points deductions for each month a club fails to pay players on time, because they're covered by the controversial football creditors rule. Didn't Plymouth go something like 9 months without paying your players? Yet were signing players, which was affecting the league.

Thinking about it, that's not a bad idea, but there is nothing to stop players walking out if not being paid in the terms set out in their contracts

They were, but I offer no excuses for previous joke owners, and we have now just about cleared the creditor debts.

However, the club itself is now in debt with it's current share holders, however the club is turning a small profit and in a position to service those debts over a period of time.
 

Kenneth E End

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
5,334
Reaction score
748
Points
113
Supports
Luton Town
The ownership structure should be in place that directors shouldn't be able to "loan" clubs money. Any money into the club kitty should be either donations or shareholders funds. That's the way our club has been run since our last takeover in 2008.

Our stadium funds are slightly different, but it's been setup in such a way that's it's separate from the club and that it can accrue levels of debt.
 

Pilgrim Meister

Active Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
627
Reaction score
73
Points
28
Location
Coningsby
Supports
Plymouth Argyle
Twitter
@mcleanrj
The ownership structure should be in place that directors shouldn't be able to "loan" clubs money. Any money into the club kitty should be either donations or shareholders funds. That's the way our club has been run since our last takeover in 2008.

Our stadium funds are slightly different, but it's been setup in such a way that's it's separate from the club and that it can accrue levels of debt.
In Argyle's sake, they are "Shareholders funds", which they expect a return on their investment.

If the club is making a profit, then a % of that profit gets returned to share holders.

The club owes the council money however, as a interest free loan was taken out in order to make the Balloon payment

Currently, the council owns the free hold of the stadium, and I have mentioned on Pasoti time and time again, if the club were to entertain buying back the free hold, then a separate holding company should buy the ground, and charge the club rent in line with mortgage repayments as its presents lower risk and enables easier finance.
However many Argyle fans have shouted me down for that statement, as they believe its a risk of the club changing hands but the stadium ownership staying the same. Then the club unable to afford the rent and end up being locked out of the ground, a la Coventry City. In most fans eyes it's either the club itself buys the ground, or continues to lease off the council

Horses for courses
 
Last edited:
Stronger Security, Faster Connections with VPN at IPVanish.com!

Forum statistics

Threads
16,098
Messages
1,116,049
Members
7,183
Latest member
BaoTrade

Latest posts

Top