Portsmouth's points deduction is unfair

Leeds - 1 admin - 15 point penalty
Bournemouth - 2 admins - 17 point penalty
Rotherham - 2 admins - 17 point penalty
Luton - 3 admins - 20 point penalty
Portsmouth - 3 admins - 10 point penalty

I've got no issue with the general sentiment of this piece, but I would suggest Portsmouth fans should be very happy at the ridiculous disparity in their penalty for coming out of admin with no CVA. You should have expected a minimum of a 20 point deduction.

Boston United 1 admin 2 relegations from Conference to Northern Premier.

Get over yourselves. Plenty of people think you deserve to start again from the very bottom! I bet none of your fans were talking abut this when you qualified for Europe, hosted AC Milan and won the FA Cup paying players wages you clearly couldn't afford in order to achieve it.

As a Pompey fan I see the -10 as a positive measure.

Not because it appeases the schadenfreude of fans of other clubs (many of whom who could benefit from casting an eye over their own club's financial probity) but because it sends a clear message about financial fair play for the future. And financial fair play is an attempt to improve the competitive integrity of the competition.

-10 means we are unlikely to 'bounce back' into the Championship next season. It means we won't benefit from any hangovers of over-paid players from last season (should any remain). It also means we won't attract an owner hoping to profit in the way our past 4 owners have done. It means there will be no profit in buying the club and loading it with debt in order to get a 'quick' attempt at the Premier League gold. It means there is no point Portpin buying the club and hoping to sell to another CSI prepared to pay a premium price for such a gamble.

Staying in League one or even dropping to League two is the best course for stabilising the club. Financial Fair Play rules (or Salary Control Management Protocol) in Leagues 1 & 2 encourage owners to invest in infrastructure in order to improve turnover so spending on players can be higher.They cannot spend more that a set % of turnover on player wages. It encourages owners to invest or borrow in a sustainable way.

And that is what Pompey has needed for the last 20 years.

Maybe someone can explain the difference between English and Scottish systems here. Rangers went into administration, couldn't agree a CVA, and were therefore liquidated, meaning the club have had to be resurrected at the bottom of Scottish league football (equivalent to three relegations) and with a 12-month transfer embargo, fines and oldco football debt liabilities.

Portsmouth haven't agreed a CVA and they're unhappy with a 10 point deduction?

This is the same Boston United that made illegal payments to players, avoiding tax, that saw the charming Steve Evans found guilty in court of tax evasion for those same payments. Many, including Dagenham would say you shouldn't have been in the league in the first place.

All true. Portsmouth are basically avoiding tax and I agree that Boston were lucky to be promoted in those particular circumstances. The point is the punishment was very substantial and, as an earlier poster pointed out, Portsmouth have got a relatively light one bearing in mind their constant discrepancies.

Get over yourself. The old canard about the sanctions punish people who were not at the club when the frauds occurred. This is just tosh. Do you think that if 'Big Bank plc' fraudulently sold products to its customers it should receive no penalty if its CEO resigned. 10 points? Damned lucky to be in the League at all.

You're unlikely to find too much support here for this stance as Pompey are now serial offenders - with the obvious exception of Rangers the most pitiful example of financial mismanagement in British football.

If the penalties for reckless spending far in excess of turnover were more draconian it would act as a deterrent which simply doesnt exist at the moment - to me the most ridiculous thing is how a team can owe millions, pay the likes of St Johns Ambulance 8p in the pound, write the rest off and come out of the whole thing with their heads held high, proud they have "done things the right way". The difference in real terms to HRMC and local businesses between next to nothing or fuck all is is neglible.

Moreover HRMC should have a set policy of refusing any CVAs where the percentage offered to them isnt significantly higher and pushing more teams into liquidation and multiple relegations - they have accepted so many shit deals on behalf of the taxpayer in the past that they are offering little deterrent whatsoever to other clubs considering the same route to success.

Portsmouth have agreed a CVA. Portpin's offer of £500k for the club constitutes that CVA. But the offers to buy from both Portpin and the Pompey Supporters Trust are conditional on the administrator getting rid of the high earning players from the last two seasons of overspend.

The points deduction is based on the fact that creditors under the failed CVA from 2010 were not given a vote on the new CVA passed at a creditors' meeting last month. It is a technicality as these creditors were thought to be represented by the liquidators of the oldco under that CVA. The League said they weren't. The new CVA reduced their payments from 20p in £ to 0.4p. They should have had a say

Many at Pompey see these manoeuvres by the League as a positive move to discourage Portpin from continuing to try to pin charges on the club for more than its worth. There is no doubt that if Portpin regain ownership of the club they will continue to run it without significant investment. Anything that discourages them from staying involved can only be a good thing.

If only the League had stuck to its guns in 2010, however ...

Remind me which big banks plc have been punished for selling fraudulent products ? Or anyone being charged for that matter. When you punish a club, the only ones who suffer are fans. The real villains are long gone.

The people who have really suffered in all of this are the fans of other clubs who have been denied victories and trophies due to your cheating. The fans can't hand back the glory, won't hand back the victories or the trophies so it is only right they get a points deduction.

Interesting that this topic has reignited the WSC message board after the relaunch has left most articles with hardly any comments. Regarding one of the first comments, I thought Luton got a -30 penalty 3 years ago. The real test will be (in English football) will be when someone challenges the Mnachester clubs with their 'creative' accounting - mass debt for United and the stadium naming rights for City. How does this fit with FFP?

If you celebrated Milan Baros's Wemberly handball, then keep quite and take your medicine. And yes I am still bitter about it!

segedunum wrote:

Pretty much all of those fans are quite happy to go along for the ride, gurning and cheering and ringing their fucking bell at their ridiculously overpaid players that they know are way out of their price range. If they were a bit more vocal then, instead of when it all inevitably turns sour, then I might be a bit more inclined to feel some sympathy for them.

as we see from the Cardiff debacle - the fans have no say in what happens at their club (unless they're fortunate enough to be run by a Trust), but they're the ones that get punished. It's rare that a club profits on the pitch before admin - Chester, Stockport, Bournemnouth, Luton, Merthyr, Halesowen and more were hardly living the dream when they went into administration. Punish the owners, punish the people that spent money they didn't have, yet walk away scot free. Want to run a club as a private investor? Post a large financial bond. Leave the club when it's solvent - you get it back. Leave it in administration - you don't. You would see a lot fewer clubs ending up in administration of the owners and directors were going to lose financially.

Sean of the Shed wrote:


I am no Pompey fan, but it seems quite absurd when a Chelsea fan ( I assume from the shed username ) lectures others on paying over the odds for players.

segedunum wrote:

Good Lord, no. Tamworth, my friend.

About as far removed from the big spenders as you can get.

donedmundo wrote:


Your analogy doesn't work. The former CEO should be held responsible for the fraudulent activities rather than the customers of the Bank.