whats the point in docking points for clubs that go into administration...

Mint Sauce

firstly leeds are deducted points for this, 15 in total, recently, we have seen luton deducted 10, surly, the best ways for clubs to earn this money in the leauge in todays game is winning/promotion, tv rights, etc, not very easy if they are already 10 plus points behind before the season starts

mike65

The point is that its meant to be a deterrence.

Mike.

PHB

It's a incentive to manage your club properly, and then its a punishment if you mis-budget. I think the goal is to make club owners think more carefully about finance, and I think it might be working.

chopperbyrne

It's a very good ieda.

It encourages teams to look after their finances correctly.

The FAI introduced something similar a few years back.

Mint Sauce

but with such a deduction, could lead to a increased chance of relegation, and in an era when tv and competion money is so imprtant to clubs, its a smaller peice of the money pie, surely more should be done to help these strugling clubs

PHB

not really imo. They struggled not because of anything but their own poor planning. Leeds making is entirely their own.

_blank_

chopperbyrne wrote: »

The FAI introduced something similar a few years back.

And my club was denied a Premier licence.

chopperbyrne

Deservedly so

Mitch Connor

irish-stew wrote: »

but with such a deduction, could lead to a increased chance of relegation, and in an era when tv and competion money is so imprtant to clubs, its a smaller peice of the money pie, surely more should be done to help these strugling clubs

The rule was introduced as a result of Leicster (or however it is spelt - i'll now refer to them as 'they' or 'the foxes'...)

they spent too much on transfers and wages, they went into administration, wiped their debts and started buying players again, which maybe them a stronger team then they should have been at the time - which was unfair to clubs who were able to handle their finances but had little money to spend as a result of it.

KdjaCL

Leeds were deducted 10 pys last season for going into admin the 15 this season noone actually knows why.

Punishment is a good deterrent to the smaller clubs but the likes of pool and utd can run up debts of 200 million+ but thats ok as its "manageable" debt.

Fai have a good system in place altho implemented by them so it falls down a lot but if they implemented it right and actually did it, it would be a good system.

At the start of the season all the clubs apply for a licence based on some criteria one is that all your outgoungs for the season are covered so you wont go bang in the middle of the season, its failed to work Dublin City Longford Cork Shels all got licences and then had debt issues mid season with varying degrees of punishment.

but one day it might


kdjac

Mitch Connor

KdjaCL wrote: »

Leeds were deducted 10 pys last season for going into admin the 15 this season noone actually knows why.

kdjac

Weren't they docked points this season because of they way they handled the move to a 'new' board, along with not being in a position to take up membership of the league on time, not gauruntee they could fulfil all their games be the required time, and it was either being kicked out all together or being docked points.

event

PHB wrote: »

not really imo. They struggled not because of anything but their own poor planning. Leeds making is entirely their own.

well actually a lot of the fault can be traced to peter ridsdale

yet he is allowed to get another job, with no penalties, and looks to be doign the same to cardiff

often, it can be previous owners who have got them club into trouble. why is there no punishment for them?

PHB

I'm not saying there shouldn't be I'm also not saying that United should be allowed go into that much debt. Nonetheless, Leeds dug their own grave, even if it was Ridsdales fault.

acquiescefc

irish-stew wrote: »

but with such a deduction, could lead to a increased chance of relegation, and in an era when tv and competion money is so imprtant to clubs, its a smaller peice of the money pie, surely more should be done to help these strugling clubs

Im sorry but this is the only sensible post in this thread. Footballs not about 92 clubs any more. Leeds deserved it, they think theyre so special. They werent good enough and tried to cheat theyre way back. Even my aunty wants them to get promoted.......its a farce.

I think you have to go back to when they tried to buy their way to the Champions League final......

event

acquiescefc wrote: »

Im sorry but this is the only sensible post in this thread. Footballs not about 92 clubs any more. Leeds deserved it, they think theyre so special. They werent good enough and tried to cheat theyre way back. Even my aunty wants them to get promoted.......its a farce.

I think you have to go back to when they tried to buy their way to the Champions League final......

im presuming this is a troll yeah?

show me where we tried to 'cheat' our way back!

KdjaCL

event wrote: »

im presuming this is a troll yeah?

show me where we tried to 'cheat' our way back!

Bates sending the club into admin then buying it back practically debt free for a pound or something is kinda cheating akin to what leicester did albeit cleverer.



kdjac

quarryman

he didn't "send" the club into admin. they did everything they could to avoid going into admin.

then when it was confirmed they were getting relegated he took the 10 point deduction on the last day of the season thus avoiding it the following seasoon.

now *that* was smart.

also, anyone that says they wouldn't do it as chariman of their club is a liar.

DSB

Its still sneaky.

Zaph

DSB wrote: »

Its still sneaky.

People conveniently forget that Boston United also took their 10 point deduction at the end of last season. Was that sneaky too or does the label only apply to Leeds because they're a "big" club?

The 15 point deduction this season was for allegedly "breaching the league's insolvency rules", although what rules exactly have never been made clear to either the club or the public. Without trying to sound like we're being victimised, the circumstances around whether Leeds would be able to start the season or not had a lot to do with the Inland Revenue challenging the CVA at the last possible moment, which held up Leeds being able to take up membership of the league and resulted in the points deduction. I don't think that a smaller club would have been treated in this way and that both the taxman and the league saw Leeds as perfect to make an example of and send out a warning to other clubs to keep their finances in order.

DSB

zaph wrote: »

People conveniently forget that Boston United also took their 10 point deduction at the end of last season. Was that sneaky too or does the label only apply to Leeds because they're a "big" club?

The 15 point deduction this season was for allegedly "breaching the league's insolvency rules", although what rules exactly have never been made clear to either the club or the public. Without trying to sound like we're being victimised, the circumstances around whether Leeds would be able to start the season or not had a lot to do with the Inland Revenue challenging the CVA at the last possible moment, which held up Leeds being able to take up membership of the league and resulted in the points deduction. I don't think that a smaller club would have been treated in this way and that both the taxman and the league saw Leeds as perfect to make an example of and send out a warning to other clubs to keep their finances in order.

The sneaky label does apply to Boston too. But I think you nailed it on the head that it got more attention because Leeds are a big club. None of us can be held responsible for how the media works though. That is a different argument altogether.

event

have to also remember that the inland revenue waited until 15 minutes before the deadline to make their challenge, which delayed us even further

KdjaCL

Why are Leeds fans getting so defensive about bates? he allegedley owns the ground via a cayman islands company and sold the club to himself practically debt free for a pound or something.

hardly one to be defending when hes part of the reason your in league 1


kdjac

event

im not defending him at all, but dont like people talking about the administration when they dont know the half of it.

people saying he sent them into administration is wrong, its not like we chose to do it

loyatemu

the 15 points deduction was not for the original administration, which was mainly the fault of the previous owners, but for the shady way in which the ownership of the club was transferred over the summer.

Previously unknown creditors appeared out of the woodwork who voted in favour of Bates plan when most of the other creditors were not in favour of it - these mystery creditors turned out to be connected in various ways to Bates and his associates. Neither the league nor the inland revenue were happy with this deal and Leeds were threatened with having their share in the League removed (effectively kicking them out). The 15 points was a compromise.

Q_Ball

KdjaCL wrote: »

Why are Leeds fans getting so defensive about bates? he allegedley owns the ground via a cayman islands company and sold the club to himself practically debt free for a pound or something.

hardly one to be defending when hes part of the reason your in league 1


kdjac

No one's defending him and a lot of people (myself included) hoped someone else would buy the club.

Bates didnt buy Leeds for a pound, he bought chelsea for a pound. He had the brazen cheek to offer creditors 1p for every pound they owed, thus making the price of the club £30k. He ended up paying between 8 and 13p (still ridiculous) in the pound which brought it up to about £300k.

When it came to deciding the new owners, bates needed 75% majority of the creditors votes. Some ridiculous percentage (~70% but not sure) was linked to bates through different companies (astor being the most prominant).

The inland revenue were not happy with bates offer and worried about the indirect influence that bates had on the voting. Egged on by local Leeds councillors, they challenged the CVA at the last minute as was pointed out. This case was later dropped.

The 15 points was not a compromise. It was voted upon by all the chairmen of the clubs in the championship, league one and league two. Leeds argument against this is that the vote was not impartial. Thats why bates is appealing it, and looking for an impartial panel to look at what happened with the CVA.

Essentially what the 15 point deduction boils down to is some shady shenanigans by bates and idiotic, moronic and absolutely incompetent handling of the administration and subsequent sale of the club by administrators KPMG.

We went into administration due to peter ridsdale. The chairman is ultimately responsible for the financial matters and running of a club as the manager is for the football aspect. It beggars belief and boils the blood of many a Leeds fan when he proclaims innocence.

People say that the club paid the price for trying to buy *insert trophy here* and usually point to our CL semi final appearance. There was a long time between then and administration. Those years were spent trying to stave off administration. A lot of people think the club did it to wipe off the debt. Thats not untrue but if it was that simple, why not declare bankruptcy sooner (when we were still in the PL or first season in the CCC). Fact is that 80 - 90m was wiped off the debt in that time. We've lost ownership of our stadium and training grounds in efforts to stave of administration. I'm sure it was not a decision that was taken lightly.

Besides, I think offering seth johnson £35k p/w kinda shows we weren't trying to buy anything but trouble

I wouldn't call the timing sneaky, rather shrewd.

Anyway back on topic......

And I whole heartedly agree that clubs should be punished for entering administration in case anyones wondering.