J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Yeah, my feeling is that they will get enough points deducted to ensure they are bottom, otherwise they haven't been punished effectively & that is what the rule is meant to do.
Portsmouth- what on earth (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter ccfcway
- Start date
thegameaintstraight
New Member
More interesting reading, apologies if youve already seen it.
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...ely-lead-to-automatic-relegation-expert-says/
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...ely-lead-to-automatic-relegation-expert-says/
EleanorRigby
New Member
My understanding as it stands it will be 10 points but if the administrator finds any rinkidinks that could be another offence and further sanctions applied.
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
I remember a couple of seasons ago, with Southampton in trouble . If I recall correctly, the FL specified the punishment in such a way as to ensure that Southampton would be punished, ie suffer, as a result of points deduction.
They were in the relegation zone. If they were going to be relegated automatically (without points deduction) , then they would start the following season with a points deduction. If they would have escaped automatic relegation, then the points would be deducted instantly, to ensure relegation. The point of this was to ensure they were punished properly (see ken deluded for details
)
So, if there is consistency, Portsmouth should be deducted enough points to put them in the bottom three. If the process of admin and assessment is delayed, then it gives the FL the opportunity to see what they need to do in order to ensure they are relegated, which could work in our favour. If the assessment is made almost immediately, and they are deducted say 15 points, they might still escape.
They were in the relegation zone. If they were going to be relegated automatically (without points deduction) , then they would start the following season with a points deduction. If they would have escaped automatic relegation, then the points would be deducted instantly, to ensure relegation. The point of this was to ensure they were punished properly (see ken deluded for details
)So, if there is consistency, Portsmouth should be deducted enough points to put them in the bottom three. If the process of admin and assessment is delayed, then it gives the FL the opportunity to see what they need to do in order to ensure they are relegated, which could work in our favour. If the assessment is made almost immediately, and they are deducted say 15 points, they might still escape.
PhilWasn'tBabb
New Member
As I remember, correct me if I'm wrong, Southampton when into admin much later in the season hence the issue over when the points were to be taken off. Did they go down and then get a further 10 points deducted anyway
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
From what i have understood there will be a 10 point deduction.
If they waited to go into admin in March then they would have had the 10 points deducted at the start of the next season.
Had they gone into admin twice within 18 months the penalty would be more severe. The premier league and football league act
together on this issue since 2003. However today's admin comes 2 years later so that extra penalty should not apply.
However the rules are still discretionary if the football league feel they have 'flaunted' the situation to avoid creditors.
To summarise 10 points definite with a further penalty only possible.
If they waited to go into admin in March then they would have had the 10 points deducted at the start of the next season.
Had they gone into admin twice within 18 months the penalty would be more severe. The premier league and football league act
together on this issue since 2003. However today's admin comes 2 years later so that extra penalty should not apply.
However the rules are still discretionary if the football league feel they have 'flaunted' the situation to avoid creditors.
To summarise 10 points definite with a further penalty only possible.
It is 10 points now on bbc site http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16943651
They will be getting -20 points as they (the f.a.) will make an example. Enough is enough with clubs being badly run (ourselfs included before anyone starts) if you dont have the fuckin money then you dont buy the player. Shit run clubs like ourselfs(in the past) and current clubs like Leicester, Cardiff, Portsmouth running above there means will suffer shortly. Make my words Cardiff will go into liquadation if they dont go up this season.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
Werent people saying that last season ?
@richh87
Member
My understanding is that after March the FA can choose to dock the 10 points this season - or next.
This stops clubs waiting until after that point and getting promoted / avoiding relegation.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
"Although Pompey are set to be docked 10 points for going into administation, they could lose further points at the discretion of the Football League as a result of it happening for the second time in such a short period of time.
Remarkably, this is the third time Portsmouth have gone into administration in recent years. The club also went into administration in December 1998, prior to being taken over by the Serbian businessman Milan Mandaric"
Remarkably, this is the third time Portsmouth have gone into administration in recent years. The club also went into administration in December 1998, prior to being taken over by the Serbian businessman Milan Mandaric"
Cardiff fans think there in a good place at the moment but there in for a massive shock soon. Paying for players and wages well over there means. It'll catch up soon followed by Leicester.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Not so. Twice within 18 months IS the rule for further punishment (i.e. points deducted or automatic relegation)
The FA do not deduct points, it's the football league or the premier league authorities. Both have a working pact to act consistently.
Pompey have put themselves into admin before March and the last time it happened was more than 18 months ago.
So the only chance of a further reduction in points is the 'discretionary' one.
Last edited:
I can't see any further points deduction,after all it was the football league that allowed convers sports to take over pompey after the football league that apparently done the thorough checks re the finances of convers sports so i don't think they will make themselves look stupid,I do think however that has something to do with the change of the administrator as pompey wanted to keep the old one but the court changed it to a new administrator
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
It also emerged electricity and gas suppliers have been threatening to cut off power to the club's Fratton Park stadium for non-payment.
You couldn't make that up! :facepalm:
You couldn't make that up! :facepalm:
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
According to the bbc website, the PL prematurely paid a part of their parachute payment. , in January. Now, if this was part of an attempt to help them to avoid folding, it raises some questions:-
Firstly, it is preferential treatment, that interferes with a just outcome of another league;
Secondly, was it conditional, to enable payment to creditors, in particular to HMRC - in which case, why did they not pay it? If they defaulted on an agreement, the FL may take a dim view;
Thirdly, why did the PL not insist that they sold some players, to facilitate payment to creditors? If they did, then Pompey have defaulted again; if they did not ( make a condition), why not? They have saleable assets, so a premature payment of parachute money is effectively acting with favouritism towards a specific club. They don't offer loan facilities to other clubs, or do they?
Fourthly, that payment is now sitting in their bank account, believed to be circa £3M in the black. This was frozen when, in January , HMRC raised the petition to freeze their assets , because of outstanding tax bills. As a result of that freeze, in jan, Pompey have been unable to pay their players.....until today, the administrators will now be able to access those funds in order to run the club. Ironically, this now means that they can pay the players, with money from the premature PL parachut payments, yet they are not obliged to pay their taxes! So they get to hold onto the best players, that they can't afford, with money given to them by the football league authorities!!
Meanwhile , we have sold everyone bar the youngsters.
The FL need to respond accordingly.
Having said all of this, I do sympathise with their fans, when the club has been so badly run.
There is no point having financial fair play rules, if other aspects of financial control are so lacking, and it enables clubs to exploit weak footbal league management- and complicity!
Firstly, it is preferential treatment, that interferes with a just outcome of another league;
Secondly, was it conditional, to enable payment to creditors, in particular to HMRC - in which case, why did they not pay it? If they defaulted on an agreement, the FL may take a dim view;
Thirdly, why did the PL not insist that they sold some players, to facilitate payment to creditors? If they did, then Pompey have defaulted again; if they did not ( make a condition), why not? They have saleable assets, so a premature payment of parachute money is effectively acting with favouritism towards a specific club. They don't offer loan facilities to other clubs, or do they?
Fourthly, that payment is now sitting in their bank account, believed to be circa £3M in the black. This was frozen when, in January , HMRC raised the petition to freeze their assets , because of outstanding tax bills. As a result of that freeze, in jan, Pompey have been unable to pay their players.....until today, the administrators will now be able to access those funds in order to run the club. Ironically, this now means that they can pay the players, with money from the premature PL parachut payments, yet they are not obliged to pay their taxes! So they get to hold onto the best players, that they can't afford, with money given to them by the football league authorities!!
Meanwhile , we have sold everyone bar the youngsters.
The FL need to respond accordingly.
Having said all of this, I do sympathise with their fans, when the club has been so badly run.
There is no point having financial fair play rules, if other aspects of financial control are so lacking, and it enables clubs to exploit weak footbal league management- and complicity!
Last edited:
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
This was BBC South's lunchtime edition. I watched this evenings local news (BBC South) at 6.30 pm and although the news was focused on Portsmouths administration, no definate amount of points were mentioned. They just showed an earlier interview with the administrator, Trevor Birch who just said they were looking for a buyer for the club. So the points total deduction could yet be higher. It's the League who decide the deduction, not the BBC!
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
The club have had their SKY cut off!
Perhaps someone should tell them if they ring sky and threaten to leave, they willget some free stuff, including free rental, that should sort it !
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Portsmouth were deducted 9 points as part of the Premier League last time. I cannot see any legislative document that says differently. Rotherham have in the past been deducted 17 points for failure to get out of administration in the time period having previously been in administration 18 months before. Usually deduction of further points occurs when the club fails to enter CVA agreements properly.
Appleton's comments regarding squad depth and ability to fulfil fixtures is deliberate. There is a ruling in place which permits emergency loans in the extreme situation of not being able to fulfil fixtures. Not sure but I think Northwich were able to recruit players due to this. I am sure this should apply to goalkeepers only but one suspects a challenge is going to come from Pompey.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Wrong? Don't see what you are driving at ? I'm aware 9 points were deducted in the premier league but what has that got to do with it?
It's 9 in the prem because they play fewer games by the way. As for the 18 month rule that IS correct. The discretionary rule IS also correct.
i doubt any further points will be deducted. However Burbageskyblues comments are very interesting.
It's 9 in the prem because they play fewer games by the way. As for the 18 month rule that IS correct. The discretionary rule IS also correct.
i doubt any further points will be deducted. However Burbageskyblues comments are very interesting.
Thers every reason to expect that the parachute payments ,not only this years ,but there has been talk of next years ,fastracked too,have already been mortgaged ,therefore surely the onus is on the prem to investigate and with hold to ensure creditors are paid IE;theyve already had the money once and squandered it. We should all be emailing the league and fa/prem to ensure they follow these lines.further more they've recieved a lot of support in the house of commons from David Cameron ,so we need to make our MP's enlighten him,as to the merits of good housekeeping and fairness.
EleanorRigby
New Member
It will be just 10 points. Lets be grateful for that lifeline, it's over to SISU now to honour promises and give Andy Thorn permission to bring atleast 2 extra bodies in. We are entering a 15 match mini-season and need to be top of that league.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Not so sure. BBC have this ......
And, although Pompey are set to be docked 10 points for going into administation, they could lose further points at the discretion of the Football League as a result of it happening for the second time in such a short period of time.
Remarkably, this is the third time Portsmouth have gone into administration in recent years. The club also went into administration in December 1998, prior to being taken over by the Serbian businessman Milan Mandaric.
Seems like it could be more and that the Premier thing has no bearing on the decision.
And, although Pompey are set to be docked 10 points for going into administation, they could lose further points at the discretion of the Football League as a result of it happening for the second time in such a short period of time.
Remarkably, this is the third time Portsmouth have gone into administration in recent years. The club also went into administration in December 1998, prior to being taken over by the Serbian businessman Milan Mandaric.
Seems like it could be more and that the Premier thing has no bearing on the decision.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Just looking at Portsmouth fans' comments about their situation.
Think this lad, who is just 17, has it summed up to a tee;
Craig says former boss Harry Redknapp is partly to blame for Portsmouth's struggles.
"He got us the dream team we wanted when we won the FA Cup, but the club is too small."
While this lad James, 28, has his head in the clouds;
James is staying positive despite all Pompey's problems: "I think Portsmouth have been really unlucky."
Where does luck feature in mismanagement?
Think this lad, who is just 17, has it summed up to a tee;
Craig says former boss Harry Redknapp is partly to blame for Portsmouth's struggles.
"He got us the dream team we wanted when we won the FA Cup, but the club is too small."
While this lad James, 28, has his head in the clouds;
James is staying positive despite all Pompey's problems: "I think Portsmouth have been really unlucky."
Where does luck feature in mismanagement?
Last edited: