- Jan 28, 2011
I'd tend to agree but for one thing.I hate the league's policy of draconian penalties like points deductions for clubs that go into administration. The idea of a deterrent is OK in theory if it deters crooked owners from dodging their obligations or trying to get an unfair advantage over the competition. But generally the days of Leeds Utd type "unfair competition" are over, and if it has been replaced it is by genuinely unfair oil and gas financed financial doping.
So all this punishment regime does in reality is make a very bad situatation for financially weak clubs even worse.
And as always the people who suffer the most are the supporters.
The last team to gain the unfair advantage to which you refer was Leicester City. In October 2002, they went into administration, in part because they'd built up a large wage bill and because they'd had to pay for a new stadium. The club was rescued by a takeover and gained automatic promotion back to the Premiership that very same season.
It was only after several other clubs complained to the Football League, that the Football League introduced a ruling that any club placed in administration would be deducted ten points.
That promotion and their ability to just wipe away debt at a stroke of a pen had a positive knock-on effect on their stability as a club that meant that 14 years later they were in a position to win the Premier League ahead of two other clubs who had never gone into administration, always managed their pay bill and whose financial clout had been hit by the building of a new stadium.
So, while I understand your viewpoint, I'm bound to say that there must be punishments for clubs who can't get their financial shit together and, although I feel sorry for the fans, it may well be that, one day, those very same fans might turn out to be just like the entitled little shits who support Leicester City and so, given that, I really can't bring myself to agree.