......bit if they didnt do it this way then it could be exploited like Leeds did...as you pointed out?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Southampton deducted 10 points
- Thread starter The Large One
- Start date
......bit if they didnt do it this way then it could be exploited like Leeds did...as you pointed out?
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
The problem with Leeds is that they chose when to take the 10 point penalty, rather than the league. Now it's down to the League; however in my view the league should be forced to make an instant decision. As someone said, they are now playing their next two games in effect to avoid a -10 start next season. How can two games be worth ten points? I don't see the logic.
The Large One
Who's Next?
- Thread starter
- #23
I'm not sure how flexible the rules are regarding the amount of points deducted, but I think the standard rate is 10.
Therefore that level of deduction has little to do with the fact that there are only two games left.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
Sorry, I'm not explaining myself very well. Their results in the next two games will determine whether they start next season on -10 or 0. They can, in effect, earn 10 points for next season from these two games.
The idea, of course, is to maximise the effect of the ten points, to make it as much of a deterent as possible, for which I applaud the FL. I just don't quite see the logic behind this process. What would happen if it was say Ipswich, in 8th? They can't reach the playoffs, but a ten point deduction would put them just above the relegation zone. Do they get the penalty immeadiately, or does it wait until next season? Do they wait and see whether at the end of the season the 10 point penalty would get them relegated, and then apply it only if this is the case? Similarly, for someone like Cardiff. It would drop them out of the playoff places, is that enough punishment? Or would they have to wait until next season?
In fact, I think I've come to the conclusion that any 'decision' made by the FL is flawed. IMO, if you have a cut off date (like the third Thursday in March, where did that come from?!), then there has to be one rule before it (i.e. they lose the points immeadiately) and one rule after it (they lose the points next season), and that's it, no choice or decision for the FL.
Last edited:
The Large One
Who's Next?
- Thread starter
- #27
I understand now.
It's a tricky one. In the Premiership, it matters because you have a bonus which is determined upon where you finish in the table. I don't know if that's the case in the other divisions. I think that the original idea of deferring the decision is actually pertinent here. As to your 'Ipswich scenario', I'm not sure. It's a good point, to which I don't readily have the answer.
What I would say is that someone who so spectacularly abuses their position within a football club to leave them in such a parlous state when they really ought not to be should be banned from any administrative or influential role in football permanently.
From BBC:
Southampton will be relegated from the Championship after being docked 10 points by the Football League.
The penalty comes after the club's parent company went into administration at the start of April.
Southampton are currently four points off safety with two games to go and, even if they beat the drop, they will be deducted 10 points.
If they do not avoid finishing in the bottom three then the points penalty will take effect next season.
The south coast outfit had hoped to avoid the punishment as they argued that their parent company Southampton Leisure Holdings plc had gone into administration.
But a League investigation by "independent forensic accountants" found that the club and the holding company were "inextricably linked as one economic entity" and applied their mandatory penalty.
The League also found that: "The holding company has no income of it's own; all revenue and expenditure is derived from the operation of Southampton football club and the associated stadium company.
"The holding company is solvent in its own right. It only becomes insolvent when account is taken of the position of Southampton football club and the other group companies."
The statement added that there was no alternative other than to invoke the 10-point penalty.
It was also revealed that the company commissioned to look into the matter reported that co-operation with them was withdrawn towards the end of their enquiries.
Southampton will be relegated from the Championship after being docked 10 points by the Football League.
The penalty comes after the club's parent company went into administration at the start of April.
Southampton are currently four points off safety with two games to go and, even if they beat the drop, they will be deducted 10 points.
If they do not avoid finishing in the bottom three then the points penalty will take effect next season.
The south coast outfit had hoped to avoid the punishment as they argued that their parent company Southampton Leisure Holdings plc had gone into administration.
But a League investigation by "independent forensic accountants" found that the club and the holding company were "inextricably linked as one economic entity" and applied their mandatory penalty.
The League also found that: "The holding company has no income of it's own; all revenue and expenditure is derived from the operation of Southampton football club and the associated stadium company.
"The holding company is solvent in its own right. It only becomes insolvent when account is taken of the position of Southampton football club and the other group companies."
The statement added that there was no alternative other than to invoke the 10-point penalty.
It was also revealed that the company commissioned to look into the matter reported that co-operation with them was withdrawn towards the end of their enquiries.
Kukev31
New member
With Ipswich, if the 10 point deduction would actually be enough to relegate them then come the end of the season, it would be applied this season, if not then it would be applied next season.
the sporting sanctions (after the fourth thurs in march) are envoked when they will have the most material effect, be it in the current season or the next one. regardless of where ipswich might finish if they can be relegated with a points deduction it would happen this season, if not, they would start in the championship on minus ten (plus the 15 for cva) next season.
No, because they still could get relegated without the deduction. If they finish outside the relegation places they will have 10 points taken off, thus relegation them. If they are relegated by normal means the deduction takes palce next season.
The Large One
Who's Next?
- Thread starter
- #33
I could understand a deduction taking a club out of automatic promotion back into the play-offs, or from the play-offs back into mid-table as being a suitable punishment to an extent.
It's not as though Chesterfield exactly suffered for their financial misdemeanours - a nine-point deduction which took them from second to the third. Like, whoopy-doo.
But to pre-determine the outcome of the following season (like Luton and, nearly, Bournemouth) means league tables are partially decided at Price Waterhouse or Grant Thornton rather than at Portman Road or Pride Park.
It's not as though Chesterfield exactly suffered for their financial misdemeanours - a nine-point deduction which took them from second to the third. Like, whoopy-doo.
But to pre-determine the outcome of the following season (like Luton and, nearly, Bournemouth) means league tables are partially decided at Price Waterhouse or Grant Thornton rather than at Portman Road or Pride Park.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
I understand the thought behind it, but it makes no sense to me because there isn't a hard and fast rule. What constitutes 'the most material effect'? Is being moved out of the play-off places enough of a punishment to make it worthwhile? What about the automatic promotion places? Or is it only relegation? If it's only relegation, you have a potential minefield; what if the club in 6th goes into administration, the FL hold off on the punishment (as it's not enough to get the club relegated), and then the club gets promoted? Presumably they would then be able to pay off all creditors (so wouldn't invoke any further punishments for not leaving through a CVA) using the TV money; but also would they be docked the points at the start of the Premiership season? And if so, how many (as I understand it Premier League rules mean a 9 point deduction for entering administration, rather than 10)?
I'm not trying to be facetious, although I accept that my examples are extreme. I just don't think that the FL have really thought this through.
Would anyone else be pissed if we escaped relegation, then stockport got 10 points deducted? I mean, I would've wanted them deducted if it helped us get out the relegation zone, but now we've worked hard to turn things around, it's like "we could've half-arsed it" and still survived...
Kukev31
New member
If the club finished 6th and went into administration after the cut off date then the points deduction would come into effect the same season, meaning they wouldn't compete in the playoffs.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
Good knowledge.your last sentence says it all sten super. all of these points were raised at the meetings in june 07 but the fl clubs voted to back the board but mawhinney is a fool. in march of this year he told me in person that clubs going into admin after the fourth thursday would definitely have their penalty envoked the following season and when i pulled him up on that and asked when the fl clubs had held a re-vote he told me i was wrong and that the rulebook always said what he just said it did. the man is a fool. it is a shame that the fl clubs voted yes on such a half arsed rule.
Fancy that...
but its the team who finishes 2nd and goes into admin. the ten points puts them into playoffs and they win and get promoted into the holy grail of the premiership. this was asked of mawhinney in march and he had no answer, he didn't have one in june 07 and still not now.