livermanl

Is it just me or does it seem like an unfair punishment?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...on/8014811.stm

From how I read it the FA is forcing relegation on the club and if they are relegated without the 10 points coming into effect then the punishment goes on next season and not this!!!

Surely this is unfair? If the FA want to punish them this season then they are relegated, if the FA want to punish them next season then they still have a chance to stay in the Championship you can't have it both ways surely!

Thoughts?

andrewrb143

It's to combat clubs who are already getting relegated from entering administration so they can take the points penalty and not affect their next season. I think Leeds did this when they were all but relegated from League 1.

livermanl

I still don't think it is right.

The FA should actually specify which season they can be punished in it's no good saying if you avoid the drop you will go but if you don't next season you'll be punished it's one or the other as far as i am concerned...

Perhaps the FA could have waited 1 more game to see if it was even possible for the saints not to be relegated, and then stated next year they will be hit with a penalty.

BristolUK

Assuming that it's a fair sanction to use - and precedent suggests it is - and they finish in the relegation places anyway, not to apply the sanction next season would effectively mean there had been no sanction applied.

It's tough on fans and players though. The team has to fight to stay out of the bottom places...only to be relegated with the deduction applied or give it up, go down and then start next season with a big disadvantage.

Obviously better to face next season without the points defecit, so fight now. Especially as an appeal is possible.

Oink

It's a tough one. I suspect Newcastle will have to face the same problem next season.

Novocastrian

Har Har.

<I know where you live>.

Rob_999

Completely unfair - The FA should have made their minds up weeks ago rather than waiting till now.

It should either be points deducted next season, or points deducted now - no matter which league we end up in. You can't have the points deduction based on the outcome of the next two games!

Plus from what I remember Derby managed to avoid being deducted any points in exactly the same situation a few year ago.

and yes, I'm a Saints fan :curse:

Stophie

I'm a saints fan too (I know, 2 of us!!), but feel that just because Derby got an unfair advantage, doesn't mean everyone should. I don't know Derby's exact situation, but if Southampton Leisure Holdings is a parent company that has no assets, liabilities, income or outgoings other than Southampton FC and the stadium company that owns St Mary's, I think it's probably a fair cop to say that it is the club that has gone into administration, and the club has to take the punishment (although kicking someone when they're down does stink!).

Let's pray for a miracle, 6 points in the next 2 games so that the deduction could apply this season, not next.

PeterF

It was brought about because the number of teams per year going into administration was increasing.

It was seen as cheating for teams to spend beyond their capabilities, giving themselves an unfair advantage over other teams, then when they failed to achieve the aim (usually a promotion which would have paid off their debts) they'd go into administration, leaving their creditors high and dry and restart afresh with no debts (until they did the same again of course).

The 10 point penalty was introduced to stop teams doing this.

Then in recent years some teams would wait until their fate was sealed one way or another before taking the hit, once they knew they were 10 points clear, taking the hit or once they were mathematically down.

Leeds waited until they were definitely down and Boston emailed their decision to go into admin in the last day of the season during the second half of a game which they were losing and other results meant they were down.

To stop this the league introduced a new rule where a team must go into admin prior to a time in the season, sometime in March I think, where after that time the points deduction could be carried into the following season.

The board of Southampton are to blame for this, they knew the rules and as they knew their financial situation, could have and should have taken the hit before that date.







Of course the real reason for teams getting into this situation is the fact that the Prem league was introduced which 'stole' money from the League clubs making their financial situations precarious. Some gamble their whole future trying to get into that promised land to get their hands on the millions pilfered from the Leagues.

Wasn't Southampton one of those clubs who voted for the EPL?

Brownstar

The rule is simple as I see it, if you go into administration you are docked 10 points minimum. Southampto tried to get round this by saying that it wasn't the football club that went into administration it was the holding company.

The rules were brought in when Leeds made an absolute mockery of the situation and set up a new company without any penalties and owing their creditors millions.

PeterF

The rules were out before then, I think it was Leicester that finally got them to change the rules.

The Leeds and Boston situations were the same season, which prompted the date limit rule change on the 10 point deduction.

Brownstar

Maybe, not sure...........but essentially its a good rule to prevent clubs over reaching themselves.

Rob_999

But the deduction should be either this season or next. To have the outcome of the deduction based on the next two games results is insane. I understand why they've done it, but it just doesn't seem right. IMO we should get the deduction next year no matter what league we're in.

Definitely a cock up by the board, should have gone into administration earlier as even without the 10 point deduction we're odds on to go down...

At least the Canucks are doing good

Brownstar

Cock up by the board or a bit of creative accounting to try and beat the system?

Rob_999

Both.

I bet they wasted a ton of money on legal advise to try and get through the loophole, and it's backfired. Idiots