Admin penalties

[AdamStag]

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]

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]

Aye.

When did it increase to 12?

 

[mowgli]

Aye.

When did it increase to 12?

Last season i think.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

The fit and proper test is a joke...

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Kenneth E End]

The fit and proper test is a joke...

But unfortunately in line with law. You can't ban someone for what they "might" do. They get banned if they're disqualified as a director.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

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]

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]

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