Jump to content

Birmingham City face points deduction


LB_DCFC

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't agree with points deductions. Particularly for a team as crap as birmingham.

mel's idea of points deductions based on salary spend is awful. Let the league table be decided on the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

Kicking a club when it’s down. Looks like bully boy tactics to me.

Feels like they are being made an example of, and this punishment is used as a strong deterrent to others. However, they broke the rules, they understood the repercussions and that there was a possibility of this occurring, and they still did it. Feel sorry for the fans the most, imagine your club spending big to only finish 19th and then get a points deduction. They had inept owners before, but this is terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the only way I think teams would take it seriously. Fines are a ridiculous punishment for over-spending. Oh you've spent too much? OK well now you have to pay more! Ha ha!

I'd question why this decision has been taken against Birmingham and not QPR, Villa etc., but if teams see this sort of action being taken as a result, they may think twice about spending way above their means to try and get promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kernow said:

It's the only way I think teams would take it seriously. Fines are a ridiculous punishment for over-spending. Oh you've spent too much? OK well now you have to pay more! Ha ha!

I'd question why this decision has been taken against Birmingham and not QPR, Villa etc., but if teams see this sort of action being taken as a result, they may think twice about spending way above their means to try and get promotion.

Didn’t Villa avoid punishment by bringing in investment which Sawiris now owns 55% of the club?

Had it not been for that they also would have been up the creek without a paddle 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a bit different QPR and villa though.

 

Sure those clubs massively overspent but they didn't do it while in a transfer embargo.

 

Birmingham had been instructed not to spend, they had been placed under a transfer embargo and still went out and spent two and half million quid on a full back. (He looks decent as well)

You cant do that and expect to get away with it.

 

If Burton had finished third bottom I'd be screaming for instant relegation, as we didn't a points reduction is fine ?

12 is steep, they'll have it cut to six after a costly appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, WystonRam said:

Leeds had a 10 a few years back and went down from the championship ?

If I remember correctly they were playing Derby last game of the season and it looked like they'd go down anyway so they went into administration in the morning of the game or the day before to try and get the points deducted that season but the football league gave it to them the following season instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David said:

Didn’t Villa avoid punishment by bringing in investment which Sawiris now owns 55% of the club?

Had it not been for that they also would have been up the creek without a paddle 

This is what puzzles me regarding FFP.

A club gets into trouble, presumably by spending upto and over the limits set by the EFL, and one way out of it seems to be by attracting new investment.

I don't see how that encourages stability of ownership, which was one of the reasons FFP was introduced in the first place.

Say Derby were in the same situation, how does bringing in new investment help stability, especially as we have an owner who may be willing to fund the excess over and above his current investment?

He can't put in anymore due to the rules, so why doesn't that apply to new investment?

Is it just the way the finances are recorded on paper that matters, with no consideration to the real world value of money given?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The punishment kind of defeats the purpose though. I mean, the idea of FFP is for clubs to be sustainable. So one team breaks the rules, and the punishment is to fine them and dock points, mostly leading to relegation.

So then that club is now even worse off financially?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

The punishment kind of defeats the purpose though. I mean, the idea of FFP is for clubs to be sustainable. So one team breaks the rules, and the punishment is to fine them and dock points, mostly leading to relegation.

So then that club is now even worse off financially?

 

 

Shouldn’t have promised to sort things out then ignored the agreement, different level of punishment.  Out on remand then get caught for the same offence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

This is what puzzles me regarding FFP.

A club gets into trouble, presumably by spending upto and over the limits set by the EFL, and one way out of it seems to be by attracting new investment.

I don't see how that encourages stability of ownership, which was one of the reasons FFP was introduced in the first place.

Say Derby were in the same situation, how does bringing in new investment help stability, especially as we have an owner who may be willing to fund the excess over and above his current investment?

He can't put in anymore due to the rules, so why doesn't that apply to new investment?

Is it just the way the finances are recorded on paper that matters, with no consideration to the real world value of money given?

 

Same applies with forest sort of, massively in debt, but because fawaz writes off debt when that dodgy greek guy comes in they suddenly post a profit of 30 million. Makes a mockery of ffp.

Just let clubs spend what they want provided its not putting anyone into debt other than the person investing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

The punishment kind of defeats the purpose though. I mean, the idea of FFP is for clubs to be sustainable. So one team breaks the rules, and the punishment is to fine them and dock points, mostly leading to relegation.

So then that club is now even worse off financially?

There needs to be one deterrent though. If teams are fined for spending too much, in what way are they dissuaded from continuing to overspend? If they're given a transfer embargo, they can still loan players or sign players for free, and they still have the players they've bought through their overspending, so although they're hampered by the embargo, it's not so far really caused hugely negative impacts for the club.

I think it would be harsh on Birmingham for them to be the first recipient of this punishment when others have somehow escaped it, but if they are deducted points and go down, there's no better way of making clubs think twice about their spending. Owners would then be looking at the possibility of blowing a load of money to try and reach the PL, but if it fails they could face relegation, then we might see the market become slightly more stable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in all this ffp b******s, if championship teams comply with the reg's, how on earth are they expected to compete in the market place, against the teams with parachute payments? IMO this is one of the main factors in driving clubs to overspend & try to get on a level playingfield. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...