Docking points

[SeaJayPea]

Steve5 asked about this for particular clubs a few days ago, and it set me thinking. What is the rationale behind the Football League docking clubs 10 or more points if they go into receivership? Surely that can only make things worse? Prosecute individual directors if they've been up to no good, sure. But docking points is just having a go at the fans.

I bet the same rules don't apply in the Premiership.

[mightyWBA]

I agree seajay.
Points a club get are earned on the pitch.
If the powers that be at a club make a pigs ear out of finances why punish them with points deductions?

A better way might be for the Football League to take over the running of the club in question,gaining control of finances,at the same time looking for outside investment.

The only club I know in the Premier League without anybody able to bail them out is WBA.
Our chairman is an accountant though,he balances the books to perfection :-)
Mind you it's at the expense of our league position :-(

[Squitty]

I was just thinking this when I looked at the tables this morning - thinking about all of the teams who have gained by not being relegated for being rubbish - ie grimsby - i think was one of them.

[HillyHugger]

I've thought the same myself . Although I'm not sure of the exact details from what I've heard Luton Town are now a conference side largely due to the actions of previous directors .That can't be right

[SeaJayPea]

Does anybody know why they instituted this in the first place? It defeats me why anybody would have thought it a good idea

[Gromit]

The rule was introduced to stop teams living beyond their means, and even getting an unfair advantage by buying expensive players they could not afford. The clubs that were running their finances properly were getting relegated and the ones that were reckless surviving, then putting themselves into administration, and opening up again with new boards.


"The 10-point deduction for Football League clubs entering administration was introduced in 2004, with Wrexham the first League team to suffer a deduction in the 2004/05 season.
In 2007, the rule was amended so that clubs going into administration after the fourth Thursday in March would have the 10-point deduction suspended, after Leeds United and Boston United both entered administration when they were all but relegated, just before the end of the 2006/07 season.

The 72 League clubs' chairmen unanimously backed the measure, so that if a club entering administration after the deadline escaped relegation, the 10 points would be deducted that season - but if they were relegated anyway, 10 points would be taken off the following season.

Mawhinney explained: "The clubs decided the sporting sanctions would have effect - so if a club was already going to be relegated, it ought not to get an advantage by going into administration and taking a 10-point hit when it was going to be relegated anyway."

It seems harsh on the fans, but it is fairer than what we haDd before the rule was introduced.

[R1Geezer]

Bournemouth Got 17 points deducted last year, survived but anyone know why it was not 10.

[Squitty]

The Cherries were punished for failing to exit administration through the required Company Voluntary Agreement and for being declared insolvent for the second time in as many years.

[Hammond Egg]

There's a similar rule in the Premier League, though the deduction is only nine points, I believe.

[123everton]

I think it was Leicester City who brought about the rule change.
Middlesbrough got points deducted a few years ago although that was for refusing to play a game.

[Gromit]

Scudamore said: "If a club go into adminstration and can relieve themselves of debt it gives an unfair advantage in terms of league position.

"The view of the clubs is that there should be a big disincentive for clubs to overspend and overstretch themselves - that's why there will be a nine-point sanction."

But discussions in London decided a mandatory penalty should be introduced to send out a warning to clubs who are in financial difficulties.

Leicester City were heavily criticised when they entered administration in October 2002 but still managed to win promotion to the top-flight at the end of the season.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_p rem/3438891.stm

[SeaJayPea]

Hi all, thanks for the contributions, especially Gromit for the explanations. But I still can't help but think that the system's flawed, perhaps mostly because of reasons laid out by Squitty.

A difficult one, and something that didn't happen to anwhere near such an extent, paradoxically, before there was so much cash in the game.

Could the answer be a wage cap, based on your league position? Perhaps backed up by far more open finacial scrutiny?

And I love Gromit's first line - "The rule was introduced to stop teams living beyond their means, and even getting an unfair advantage by buying expensive players they could not afford." - which is perfectly true, unless you're any of the Premiership clubs with massive debt and/or annual losses.

I'd suggest that, without Abramovich, Chelsea for one are technically bankrupt.

Talk about one law for the rich...