Reading set to be deducted 9 points now.

Charliecleanstonysheens said:
Yes , I think we would all be interested in that answer.
Click to expand...
The answer is very simple.

Owners should have to use their own money and not Club assets- no loans against, no selling off (unless a process of justification is taken) and money deposited with some football body as a bond that would be used in the event of disaster ie failure to pay staff etc, then compulsory 1p in the £ repossession of the Club could, should and would follow.

Football would return to sanity if that happened, but it won't because the F auth's make from overspending.
 
fcblackpool said:
The answer is very simple.

Owners should have to use their own money and not Club assets- no loans against, no selling off (unless a process of justification is taken) and money deposited with some football body as a bond that would be used in the event of disaster ie failure to pay staff etc, then compulsory 1p in the £ repossession of the Club could, should and would follow.

Football would return to sanity if that happened, but it won't because the F auth's make from overspending.
Click to expand...
Could you not have the opposite kind of thing? The club can only use money generated by the club, and no money can be taken out of the club? Wouldn't that discourage the sharks from moving in on clubs?
 
fcblackpool said:
The answer is very simple.

Owners should have to use their own money and not Club assets- no loans against, no selling off (unless a process of justification is taken) and money deposited with some football body as a bond that would be used in the event of disaster ie failure to pay staff etc, then compulsory 1p in the £ repossession of the Club could, should and would follow.

Football would return to sanity if that happened, but it won't because the F auth's make from overspending.
Click to expand...
Who owns the assets then if not the owner? I don't think legally a club can own itself.
 
voyeur said:
Could you not have the opposite kind of thing? The club can only use money generated by the club, and no money can be taken out of the club? Wouldn't that discourage the sharks from moving in on clubs?
Click to expand...
No. There has to be an incentive to invest. The owner could take as much as he wants as long as the Club remains intact. How you'd ensure the owner works for the Club and only takes a fair return is detail I'd hope could be sorted.
 
This was always going to happen, clubs like Derby and Reading (and many others too in this division) have spent above their means for a long time now trying to make it back to the promised land.

With both failing it was only a matter of time before financial fair play kicked in.

Reading are probably in a better position than Derby, but the deduction will see them go straight into the relegation zone and they'll probably have to sell some players too in January.
 
The irony in all this is that it is the Prem who insisted on FFP rules. Now, if you were really cynical, which obviously I'm not, you might think that FFP for other clubs and parachute Payments for those down from the Prem, was designed to keep the same clubs in the Prem for all time.

It's all screwed up, and independent regulation is the only alternative to keep the Pyramid competitive.
 
Tango1953 said:
What's your solution for punishment?
Click to expand...
Let those individuals who knowingly broke the rules be punished accordingly, and a transfer embargo put in place next summer.

Yes, a transfer embargo will still affect the fans to some extent, but if the club have broke the rules to try and gain an advantage to the extent that is reported, they should be able to manage within their means until they are trusted to conduct business freely once again.

A 9 point deduction will probably affect fans, staff and players more than those who made the reckless financial decisions themselves. How is that justified?
 
I have absolutely no affection for Reading. I personally think it’s one of the most dull football clubs in English football. But I am sick of seeing fans punished for bad business decisions. How can anybody insinuate that the fans in some ways should ‘pay the price’ when all the majority of them will have seen is their club spending money?
 
Think this story has been around for a while. Was hearing pre-season that they were in financial trouble.
 
How is this even possible.

Their latest set of accounts showed they made operating losses of £43.5million, compared to £40.7million the previous year, while accumulated losses totalled £138million.
 
tangerine_neil said:
Of course. They are a set of rules designed to ensure clubs’ play fairly with their finances 😁👍
Click to expand...
Okay, but what are the limitations? How much should Blackpool be spending? Do you know how much we’re spending? At what point does it become unfair? Manchester City were very close to signing Harry Kane and Jack Grealish this summer for a combined £250m, would that have been fair play?


Maybe I’m less knowledgeable on this subject than most, and I’d be more than happy for someone to explain it to me further, I just don’t believe that it’s right to suggest reading fans are somehow implicit in this
 
Shiggy said:
Let those individuals who knowingly broke the rules be punished accordingly, and a transfer embargo put in place next summer.
Click to expand...

How? You still haven't explained how you'll do this. What punishments?

The things you have suggested are punishments already utilised, and as you say, affects the fans.
 
Tango1953 said:
How? You still haven't explained how you'll do this. What punishments?

The things you have suggested are punishments already utilised, and as you say, affects the fans.
Click to expand...
V difficult to punish after the event without a) hurting fans and, more importantly b) the F auth's looking like eejits.

Prevention and cure.
 
Tango1953 said:
How? You still haven't explained how you'll do this. What punishments?

The things you have suggested are punishments already utilised, and as you say, affects the fans.
Click to expand...
Removed from their positions, banned from being able to take on this kind of role in a football club again, and fined.

Do you believe points deductions are the only answer?
 
fcblackpool said:
V difficult to punish after the event without a) hurting fans and, more importantly b) the F auth's looking like eejits.

Prevention and cure.
Click to expand...
Genuine question. Can these cases not be prevented before the event? E.g being closely monitored and if necessary stopped by the authorities before these clubs shoot themselves and their supporters in the foot?
 
Shiggy said:
Genuine question. Can these cases not be prevented before the event? E.g being closely monitored and if necessary stopped by the authorities before these clubs shoot themselves and their supporters in the foot?
Click to expand...

It's one of the things that the Tracey Crouch review is designed to address. BST are all over it.
 
Shiggy said:
Genuine question. Can these cases not be prevented before the event? E.g being closely monitored and if necessary stopped by the authorities before these clubs shoot themselves and their supporters in the foot?
Click to expand...
I'd be amazed if the things owners do are illegal and therefore stoppable. Sadly a question of law not morals.
 
Shiggy said:
Removed from their positions, banned from being able to take on this kind of role in a football club again, and fined.

Do you believe points deductions are the only answer?
Click to expand...

You're talking about company law there, which can't be superseded by a regulator to an incumbent. And yes, the only options currently are limited as we have a "regulator" with no ** teeth. Look at the Oystons for example.
 
Tango1953 said:
You're talking about company law there, which can't be superseded by a regulator to an incumbent. And yes, the only options currently are limited as we have a "regulator" with no ** teeth. Look at the Oystons for example.
Click to expand...
Then maybe we can agree it’s a sad state we currently find ourselves in.
 
FY4MIKEH said:
I'm all for anything that benefits us
Click to expand...
Not really sure how people can agree with this kind of response.

Every championship club in 2014/15 benefitted from how poorly we were run, leading us to be an easy 3 points for most teams in the division.

During this time and throughout the years after, we protested and appealed for sympathy and help from other fanbases.

Why now should we be happy that other clubs and fanbases find themselves in turmoil after what our club has been through?

Yes the situations are different, but it’s still supporters who will suffer more than anyone else in the long run.
 
hertfordseasider said:
I was listening to 5 live last week and they said they were thinking of scrapping the parachute payments as it gives too much advantage to relegated teams, I’m not sure if the idea would be to just get rid of it completely or take the total amount and divide it equally between all the championship teams.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that the players are on multi-year contracts worth millions of pounds per year, and even a bare bones PL squad is going to cost well north of £50m p/a, so without PPs relegation from the PL would mean almost automatic insolvency and quite likely liquidation as well.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The problem here is that the players are on multi-year contracts worth millions of pounds per year, and even a bare bones PL squad is going to cost well north of £50m p/a, so without PPs relegation from the PL would mean almost automatic insolvency and quite likely liquidation as well.
Click to expand...
Longer term a solution might be to have mandatory standard industry wide contracts that provide for salary reductions in the event of relegation. Frankly it’s common sense and astonishing if a club hasn’t already catered for that in existing contracts.

But where they haven’t then I agree there’s a transitional problem.
 
The parachute payments should be assigned to pay down of debt and meeting obligations with salaries and contracts on a sliding scale BEFORE shelling out god knows how much on new transfers etc.

Football thinks it's different to the rest of
us governed by market forces.It isn't.

The Covid pandemic has changed the landscape and brought years of ignorance to a head particularly at Championship level.

Those that choose to compete within sustainable guidelines will prosper as a result and why shouldn't they.

Failing to operate within the rules is no different whether you disregard the rules on or off the pitch and the final standings should reflect that.Now they finally might.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top