Should teams in administration lose points?

[Tastycles]

Once Portsmouth's administration is confirmed, they will be all but relegated thanks to the points deduction. In recent years, we have seen the addition of this rule to stop teams that are being run badly from prospering. However, the team that it was designed in reaction to, the Leicester team that got promoted in 2003, would have been promoted anyway. In most cases, all it does is guarantee that a team will go down. Luton finished 10th in the Championship 5 years ago, now they're in the Conference, all because of points reductions. Chester have basically gone out of business because they were given a 25 points deduction before the season started so nobody went - supporting them was futile.

Clearly, you can't allow teams to prosper by taking huge financial risks, but at the same time, teams have a year of pointless matches when they are definitely going to go down. There's no point in going to a Portsmouth match, because you know they will definitely go down and finish last. I think a fairer thing would be to deduct them 5 places at the end of the season, that way, they could keep playing and aiming for 12th, which means that positive results could actually help them, rather than being left on 9 points. It also means they're still punished, and probably will go down, but it isn't a certainty for the season and it would still stop poorly run teams getting promoted. It also means that teams like Leicester would still be prevented from being promoted despite using their post-administration clout to buy a squad that was much better than everyone elses. What do you reckon?

 

[texans420]

Being stateside, I wish some of the sports leagues over here would use relegation myself. To debate your question, I would say don't deduct teams the points in league play. The FA should take a team entering administration and have them vacate their place in both the Carling Cup and the FA Cup for the following tournament year after entering administration. Why take away an opportunity from one of the smaller clubs who want to win a cup and keep their financial risk to a minimum in comparison to a big club that doesn't keep their financial house in order and doesn't really worry about winning those tournaments anyway. The league season is much too important to punish teams through points deduction. I think the money lost from taking a one calendar year tournament ban is severe enough for me and not jeopardizing a clubs survival in the division their playing in. When a team gets relegated, I want it to happen on the field and not with a points deduction because of a clubs bad financial situation. At least give the fans a reason to keep coming to the parks to keep the clubs survival alive financially and league-status wise as well. Then again I am an American-born premier league fan so what do I know. Go Arsenal!!!

 

[wphchris]

I fully agree with the points deduction rule. It provides clubs with necessary structure to run the business appropriately and not rely on sugardaddies to save the club. I really fear that teams like Chelsea, ManU, and Liverpool are on the verge of complete implosion because they have not handled their finances well. Although, I must admit that I would greatly enjoy seeing Tottenham go down the toilet. haha

The cup expulsion and forfeit of prize money idea is an intriguing one but I wonder if it would do more harm than good. Without the revenue, the team might suffer more and the creditors would refuse further invest in football.

On the US front, I would love to see the MLS merge with the USL/NASL and create a league system with promotion and relegation in three 16-team divisions. They could also found clubs into cities without other professional teams so that there is less competition and the growth could be a steady progression. Cities such as Omaha and Las Vegas could get behind their team as they attempt to move into the MLS.

And Texans...I have a very good feeling about this season. I also loved watching that Chelsuck/Inter match.