Stockport on minus 10 at start of season?

[Muzzman]

Hearn blasts administration "cheats" 31 May 2009 - 4:37 PM | Sport.co.uk

Leyton Orient chairman Barry Hearn has launched an astonishing attack on clubs who enter administration. Hearn claims such clubs are no better than drugs cheats and is calling for harsher punishments from the Football League next season. Crisis clubs Southampton and Stockport will both start the League One season on minus 10 points in August.

Hearn told the People: "We should sling them out for going into administration - minimum of one division, possibly two, and then no one will cheat any more.

"Clubs who go into administration are guilty of cheating in the same way as an athlete who is found guilty of taking drugs.

"They're running a business with money they don't have and buying players with money they haven't got. To my mind, that's cheating."

 

[severnside gull]

pretty sure that is wrong....they took their 10 points punishment this season.

However if they come out of administration without meeting league rules (which is almost impossible to do unless someone comes up with enough cash to pay all creditors) they will get another penalty (as will Soton).

Once a club goes into administration under current league rules it really is in deep shit

 

[Mellotron]

I don't see why Stockport got away with having the 10 point deduction last season. It was no punishment whatsoever.

 

[Trigger]

Further proof that Barry ****ing Hearn is absolutely clueless, yes Barry, let's just completely throw clubs out and completely disolve them eh? After all why worry about the fans so long as you may get a chance to line your fat f***ing pockets a bit more you utter twat.

These clubs have been around since before you were an itch in your fathers pants.

And relax.

 

[The Peanut Roaster]

Further proof that Barry ****ing Hearn is absolutely clueless, yes Barry, let's just completely throw clubs out and completely disolve them eh? After all why worry about the fans so long as you may get a chance to line your fat f***ing pockets a bit more you utter twat.

These clubs have been around since before you were an itch in your fathers pants.

And relax.

 

[Bwian]

Am I the only one who thinks Hearn has a valid point? He might have gone a bit OTT with his throw them out comments but when you look at the likes of Leeds and Leicester-two clubs who have given themselves a huge financial advantage over other clubs by screwing everybody because of their overspending-he is right. They are f***ing cheats.The Albion has been forced to serve up dross for a lot of our stay at Withdean by working within its financial constraints while Leeds scoop up a shit load of players by rights they shouldn't be able to afford.

Barry Hearn is a twat but this time I think he's right.

 

[Mellotron]

Further proof that Barry ****ing Hearn is absolutely clueless, yes Barry, let's just completely throw clubs out and completely disolve them eh? After all why worry about the fans so long as you may get a chance to line your fat f***ing pockets a bit more you utter twat.

And relax.

I can understand his frustration though, if indeed he is one of the few chairmen running their club properly, while watching other chairmen cheat and get away with it.

Would you not be a bit bitter?

I think his point that clubs should have harsher penalties for going into administration is completely correct. It astounds me how many chairmen are clearly running their clubs in a completely corrupt fashion.

Perhaps I am being naive, but you would not get away with it in any other industry, so why here?

 

[Acker79]

Am I the only one who thinks Hearn has a valid point? He might have gone a bit OTT with his throw them out comments but when you look at the likes of Leeds and Leicester-two clubs who have given themselves a huge financial advantage over other clubs by screwing everybody because of their overspending-he is right. They are f***ing cheats.The Albion has been forced to serve up dross for a lot of our stay at Withdean by working within its financial constraints while Leeds scoop up a shit load of players by rights they shouldn't be able to afford.

Barry Hearn is a twat but this time I think he's right.

"But the fans..."

imo, the fans, while victims of this, have stood by and reaped the rewards of the club's misbehaviour.

This isn't some secret, we know the repurcussions of a club overspending.

The fans can have an effect on the owners. Players have been driven out, managers driven out, even chairmen themselves have been driven out by fans.

But the "poor unfortunate victim fans" stood by wanting to enjoy the success.

 

[Dirty Dave]

lets turn the tables round then.

Orient go in to administration.

What's your view on it now eh Barry?

 

[Curious Orange]

I don't see why Stockport got away with having the 10 point deduction last season. It was no punishment whatsoever.

It's a sporting sanction - they finished a lot lower in the league than they would have done otherwise. Just imagine if they had been occupying an automatic promotion or play-off position - you wouldn't be saying it wasn't a punishment then surely?

 

[Silent Bob]

Am I the only one who thinks Hearn has a valid point? He might have gone a bit OTT with his throw them out comments but when you look at the likes of Leeds and Leicester-two clubs who have given themselves a huge financial advantage over other clubs by screwing everybody because of their overspending-he is right. They are f***ing cheats.The Albion has been forced to serve up dross for a lot of our stay at Withdean by working within its financial constraints while Leeds scoop up a shit load of players by rights they shouldn't be able to afford.

Barry Hearn is a twat but this time I think he's right.

There were probably people saying the same when it was us he wanted kicked out of the league.

 

[Trigger]

I can understand his frustration though, if indeed he is one of the few chairmen running their club properly, while watching other chairmen cheat and get away with it.

Would you not be a bit bitter?

I think his point that clubs should have harsher penalties for going into administration is completely correct. It astounds me how many chairmen are clearly running their clubs in a completely corrupt fashion.

Perhaps I am being naive, but you would not get away with it in any other industry, so why here?

No chairman should ever call for clubs to be thrown out of the league, it's as good as saying "I wish Southampton and Stockport did not exist".

 

[Mellotron]

It's a sporting sanction - they finished a lot lower in the league than they would have done otherwise. Just imagine if they had been occupying an automatic promotion or play-off position - you wouldn't be saying it wasn't a punishment then surely?

My entire point is that they weren't in an important position though.

Southampton's has been saved until next season, so why not Stockport's?

 

[bristolseagull]

My entire point is that they weren't in an important position though.

Southampton's has been saved until next season, so why not Stockport's?

because southampton were down already

 

[Mellotron]

No chairman should ever call for clubs to be thrown out of the league, it's as good as saying "I wish Southampton and Stockport did not exist".

Agreed on that.

But surely people agree there should be much harsher punishments because clubs continue to cheat and get away with it?

 

[Mellotron]

because southampton were down already

Stockport were going nowhere already. Meaningless deduction.

I'm sure they'd much, much rather take the hit and a lose a few pounds than start next season on -10 points, which would be a much more meaningful punishment.

 

[Curious Orange]

My entire point is that they weren't in an important position though.

Southampton's has been saved until next season, so why not Stockport's?

So? They have still been punished. Southampton could have avoided being on minus ten next season too if they'd won their last two games. The whole point of changing the rules was to stop teams that had already been relegated going into administration during the same season as a way of effectively avoiding the sporting sanction (who cares about another 10 points off the total when you are already down?).

 

[HseagullsH]

because southampton were down already

I jsut don't get it.

Southampton were already down, so a points deduction made no difference to their league status so points are to be deducted next season.

Stockpoct were already well safe, so a points dedcution made no difference to their league status so points should be deducted next season.

 

[Mellotron]

So? They have still been punished. Southampton could have avoided being on minus ten next season too if they'd won their last two games. The whole point of changing the rules was to stop teams that had already been relegated going into administration during the same season as a way of effectively avoiding the sporting sanction (who cares about another 10 points off the total when you are already down?).

But who cares about 10 points off the total when you're already safe?

Starting on -10 points next season would be a much, much tougher punishment.

 

[sten_super]

Agreed on that.

But surely people agree there should be much harsher punishments because clubs continue to cheat and get away with it?

I would like to see clubs get an automatic relegation. In Southampton's position, that would mean them playing next season in League 2. At least then they would be competitive in the new league, rather than starting on -25.

The thing is, we know the FL (or more specifically, Mawhinney) doesn't want to relegate clubs. He had the chance with Leeds (apparently the -15 deduction was in place of an automatic relegation), and didn't do it.