m20gull
Well-known member
This is not uniquely a football problem, it is because of the laws surrounding limited liability. Effectively, no-one is liable for a company's debts, except the company itself. Simplistlcally put, if the company folds, then so does its liability to pay those debts. It is wrong, and the only solution would be for any company to have at least one person (owner) to be responsible for any debts of the company. The trouble is, how would this be implemented for existing companies? Would the directors suddenly become personally responsible? Is this fair?
In football however, it should be the case that if a club goes under owing money, then they should only be able to reform from the bottom of the footballing pyramid (new company = new club). This may be unfair on the fans, but what about the club's creditors?
It would not be fair for companies generally as no director would take the risk of setting up a company and losing all their personal wealth. Limited liability is an inspired idea that allows trade and business to flourish.
Even in sport it works but administration is different. Administration allows clubs to spend money they do not have and distort the principle of competition. I am fed up with the "35 years in the top two divisions". The only reason we ended up 91st was because when the club got in to debt it sold assets to pay them and worked its way back. The reason we are where we are now is to do with the generosity of our chairman; it is not supplemented by £30m of written-off debts.
The punishment for administration needs to be greater and more similar to liquidation. Fans don't suffer. If you truly love Palace then you would follow the replacement (let's call it CPFC 2010) in the Ryman South until the right day comes around. Until this situation exists clubs that do pay their debts will always be pissed at clubs that don't. When it is both of your local rivals, five times between them, that is going to anger.