Unfair rule in football

6 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2010-01-27 21:20

Most people would agree you don't kick someone when they're down. Yet that seems to be what happens in professional football.

My understanding is that when a team goes into administration - i.e. faces serious financial difficulties - they lose 10 points from whatever league they happen to be in.

I thought it was unfair when it happened to Leeds and Southampton, two teams I don't support. Now it seems about to happen to Crystal Palace, a team I do support, and it seems more unjust than ever.

If a team is struggling financially, surely that in itself is enough of a penalty. New players won't want to join, existing players will be looking to leave and morale will generally be low.

The last thing they need on top of all those problems is to be sent plummeting down their league to face possible relegation.

In the case of Palace they will stay just above the relegation zone, but it still seems like punishment overkill.

Thu, 2010-01-28 11:33

tcook

He is really is a pain - and he's blocked. Please ignore his stupid comments. As for the football - the rule was introduced to stop clubs merrily going into administration, leaving their bills unpaid and then popping up under another company the next day. It's harsh but I fear that until we have a better system of corporate governance it is probably for the best.

Thu, 2010-01-28 21:12

brooosh

Thanks for explaining that Tony. I hadn't realised what lay behind the rule. Maybe they should apply the 10 point subtraction only when the club pops up again without repaying its debts. Come to think of it perhaps that's what happens anyway. It would seem to be fairer. I'm not a Man U fan Biggus - in fact not really keen on them at all - but I have to say what happened to them when they were bought by the Glazer family was grossly unfair. They went from being massively solvent to hugely in debt and all of it brought about by people who neither undertood football nor had any interest in the team other than as a means of possibly getting richer quicker.

Fri, 2010-01-29 00:14

stormy_petrel

Albatross said: Tough shit, broosh. Read the rules Then tony said: He is really is a pain - and he's blocked. Please ignore his stupid comments As for the football - the rule was introduced to stop clubs merrily going into administration, leaving their bills unpaid and then popping up under another company the next day. It's harsh but I fear that until we have a better system of corporate governance it is probably for the best. Which isn't what Albatross said in the first place? Huh? Well?

Fri, 2010-01-29 14:23

tcook

Oh stormy, I think you stir the pot old friend.

Fri, 2010-01-29 19:20

Moimo

It's a funny old game, a funny old game. Living on the South Coast this is a common problem, all three sides, Bournemouth, Southampton and Portsmouth are always on the verge. Palace have a problem when players leave for a lower league club saying it's a quicker way into the prem! Their problem will be that there is a variety of teams to choose from to support compared to other areas. It's as Tony says, otherwise the outlay would be tiny compared to the gains for an individual. Millions if they could walk away. Thank God the Premier League operates to a different set of rules, otherwise teams would be taken over by all sorts of dodgy characters!

Topic locked