11 November ~ Supporters in England – or even in the SPL – may have been a little taken aback last week at the 25-point penalty handed down to Dundee for going into administration in late October. Unlike the other senior leagues, the Scottish Football League has no set penalty for such offences, instead making them up as they see fit, and there were a number of reasons why Dundee's case was viewed in a particularly dim light. Not only was it the club's second administration in eight years but the circumstances of this one (actually, of both) were perceived as particularly profligate.

Furthermore, although nine players were made redundant when administration hit, there were qualms expressed in many quarters that a reasonably good, and reasonably well-paid, first team had been kept on even while administrator Bryan Jackson was warning they only had funds to survive until Christmas.

Some might even say it's a pretty lenient penalty. Clyde fans, say, who saved their club by paying off their entire first team squad last year and taking on a scratch team on wages of £20 a week. They now sit bottom of Division Three, but they did avoid defaulting on their debts. Or Livingston supporters, who were relegated two divisions for their administration last summer. Applying a similar demotion to Dundee mid-season would be impractical for all sorts of obvious reasons, but there was a feeling in at least some quarters that consistency at least demanded harshness.

Jackson has reacted angrily, saying it will hamper his efforts to find investment and could kill the club. There's still a danger that he might be right, and no one wants to see clubs go under – it was a thankless task trying to balance that against the need to be fair to other, more responsible, clubs. But ultimately no club in such circumstances can be allowed to set the terms for their own survival. The SFL called Livi's bluff after similar statements last year, they survived after all, and at the moment there's every reason to be optimistic that Dundee will likewise pull through.

The issue of the fairness (or otherwise) of the punishment is further complicated by the fact that the supporters' trust, Dee4Life, had a 26 per cent share in the club and a seat on the board. This rather muddies the waters when people are calling for owners and directors to be punished rather than supporters – and particularly when anyone is calling for those involved in collapsed clubs to be banned from football – as most of us hope Dee4Life will now step in to take over the club altogether. They are already making excellent progress in their efforts to raise funds to do so.

And what's been interesting is the way the latest setback seems to have focussed minds and galvanised these efforts. The anger that, ten days ago, was being directed at their club and board is now being focused on the SFL. Whether the league anticipated such a reaction only they can say, but it certainly seems to have got them to rally round – Saturday's attendance at Dens Park was the highest for 18 months. It's to be hoped that this redirection of anger doesn't cause anyone to lose sight of the lessons that need to be learned. But all of that, of course, depends on the survival of the club. Dundee may have been a magnet for irresponsible owners over the years, but they're not some flash-in-the-pan like Gretna, they remain one of the biggest clubs in Scotland. It's unthinkable that they could be allowed to go under. Gavin Saxton

Comments (4)
Comment by Banana Banana 2010-11-11 13:10:38

I think that Dundee supporters proposed boycott of away games shows the ongoing problem that the club and its supporters continue to act in an arrogant way. Targetting anger at the SFL and its member clubs yet again misses the point that this problem is yet again entirely of the club's own making.

Whilst I am sure that many of the supporters are sensible people, there still seems to be the underlying attitude that Dundee are 'too big' for the league they are in. Indeed all it takes is another dodgy businessman to promise the restoration of 50 year old glories to blind many to reality.

Comment by AYRSHIRE_ANGUS 2010-11-11 14:10:04

Dundee have a poor away support even when doing well so all the talk about affecting other clubs' income is spurious.

Comment by Dalef65 2010-11-12 15:03:18

Down here in England,this story has`nt had as much coverage as say,Portsmouth had when they went into administration,so I`m not as familiar with the facts as I would like to be perhaps....
I am however interested in some of the terminology used in the article.Notably the phrase "nine players were made redundant".
When English clubs go into administration,we are endlessly told that football debts(ie transfer fees and playing contracts)must be paid in full.
I would have assumed that this would also be the case in Scotland ?
So my question is,how come players are being made redundant in this Dundee`s case ?
Maybe someone who knows a little bit more about it could come on and shed a bit more light on this choice of words ......?

Comment by Big Blue 2010-11-14 00:44:53


No arrogance, just letting folks know that they can't have it both ways - give vocal support to the penalty, but don't expect our money at the gates. I estimate Ross Co, only hot a fifth of what they could have expected.

Our Board speaks for itself - but we don't aim to be Turkeys voting for Christmas anymore!!!

Yeah, Ayrshire Angus, 'only' 200 Dees in Dingwall. At a guess as much as anything rustled up in Angus this weekend?

Related articles

It’s Not All About The Old Firm: Defying the odds in Scottish football
by Scott Burns Pitch Publishing, £12.99Reviewed by Gordon CairnsFrom WSC 373, March 2018Buy the book Eight clubs from outside Glasgow have...
Two shots in the heart of Scottish footballby Grant HillWholepoint, £7.99Reviewed by Archie MacGregorFrom WSC 357 November 2016 Buy...
There’s always last year ~ Scottish Premiership, 2015-16
Dundee United mid-table, Hamilton rock bottom and Ross County in trouble – what WSC contributors got right and wrong from the previous season Embed...