Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dundee FC 25 point deduction for going into administration.

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
A completely ludacris decision by the SFL and SFA, to deduct 25 points and place a transfer embargo on Dundee FC. This is the most any club in britain has been deducted, the usual being 10-15. What are your oppinions on the decision, as you can probably guess im a Dundee fan and am not to pleased.

BBC story on the subject:
news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by shmo5
 


Shocking mate,there is a big problem in footie at the moment with this sort of thing,this has happened to a few clubs in recent years,it says you go straight to the bottom of the league,ive just looked at your table,what a shame, youve been in such good form this season but if you keep that up you should be safe,unlucky mate, good luck for the rest of the season!



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
We've just had to sell our best striker aswell. It just seems that they are trying to do as much as possible to destroy the team instead of helping it, the point of admin in the first place.

Atleast they have set a precident now, so when the clubs these idiots represent inevitably go down the same route it has to be hard on them aswell.

At least we're on a good run just now and should be able to tell the SFL where to stick thier punishment.
edit on 14-1-2011 by shmo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Its just a matter of time before one of the big english premier league clubs goes into administration,the amount of debt some of these clubs are in is astronomical,clubs like Dundee and Portsmouth should be a warning to others,somethings got to change,the pfa and sfa need to do a lot more to help these clubs out in these situations.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Sounds like the competition that is going on is not just on the field. The are a lot of issues in how the money side is played and I hope that playing field gets a more balanced rule book for the good of the game.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Dundee are being punished because they knowingly spent money that should have been used to pay off HMRC ( their primary creditor ) ie. they defrauded the taxpayer.

In addition, they have gone into administration for the second time in seven years, and that is why they have received such a hefty fine.

The SFL doesn't have a set penalty for financial impropriety, and they decide the punishment on a case-by-case basis, which is why the 25-point penalty may seem quite a lot.


While I have sympathy for Dundee fans, it could have been a lot worse, as Livingston got demoted two divisions for similar financial malpractice.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
By jaw dropped when I read that!

Why 25? I've never heard of a deduction of that many points before.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Yes Dundee have been punished for not paying the taxman, the punishment is called administration. No other governing body in Britain would punish a company further for going into admin. Furthermore who are the SFL to say how long is acceptable between going into admin a second time, seven years is a long time in business, whats going to be next "you when into admin 20 years ago we're going to more than double the accepted punishment for normally going into admin".

what ever way you look at it 25 points is too many.

Livingston where demoted as they could/did not pay the bond to the SFL as a guarentee that they could fulfill their games. Dundee did.



Dundee have just completed 15 games unbeaten run with a game against the league leaders mid week. They currently sit 7th in the league.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by shmo5
 


The SFL are the regulators of the 3 leagues below the SPL. Consequently, they are the ones who set the rules, and it's up to the clubs to meet these rules.

If Dundee, or any of the other league clubs, don't agree to the SFL rules, then they are entirely within their rights to remove their club from the SFL and form another league.

Football clubs are not like other businesses, otherwise Dundee FC would have been liquidated a long time ago.

In England, in the last few seasons, Luton Town have been docked 30 points, Bournemouth and Rotherham have been decucted 17 points, while Leeds United missed out on automatic promotion, due to starting the season on -15 points.


From what I've read, Dundee used money, that should have been put aside to pay off HMRC, to buy a couple of new players. This is defrauding the taxpayer, and they are very lucky to still be in existence, let alone retaining their Division 1 status.

They could have been wound-up, and had their assets sold off to partially repay their tax burden.


The tough laws on teams going into administration on multiple occasions are to prevent teams from splashing out with money they can't afford, while knowing that if it all goes wrong they will only suffer a 10 point penalty.
A calculated gamble, if you will.


Dundee fans weren't complaining when they were splashing ridiculous amounts of cash on transfers and/or wages. eg. Claudio Caniggia. Nor were they complaining when they were finishing 3rd in the SPL and going on a couple of forays into Europe.


Also, you should be pleased that the team is on a 15 game unbeaten run and have moved up to 7th. Normally, a 25 point deduction would see most teams involved in a relegation battle.

All this points penalty has entailed is your team being stuck in this division for one more season.

In my opinion, your team has got off lightly !



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by shmo5
 


The SFL are the regulators of the 3 leagues below the SPL. Consequently, they are the ones who set the rules, and it's up to the clubs to meet these rules.

If Dundee, or any of the other league clubs, don't agree to the SFL rules, then they are entirely within their rights to remove their club from the SFL and form another league.


It doesnt mean that they can justify punishing the club again for something for which they have already been punished. Also the first time we where in admin we where in the SPL which is out of the jurisdiction of the SFL, yet they can use it as an "example" of one of our crimes.



Football clubs are not like other businesses, otherwise Dundee FC would have been liquidated a long time ago.


Im sure the administration laws work exactly the same as other businesses in that an administrator is appointed and if the business can not be saved they are liquidated.



From what I've read, Dundee used money, that should have been put aside to pay off HMRC, to buy a couple of new players. This is defrauding the taxpayer, and they are very lucky to still be in existence, let alone retaining their Division 1 status.


As far as im aware we didnt even miss a payment of the agreed payment plan, which is legal and used by almost every other club in britain, it was only when Callum Melville resigned that HMRC decided to demand all their money at once.



They could have been wound-up, and had their assets sold off to partially repay their tax burden.


They could have but where deamed savable by the administrator, the exact same as it would have been for any business that goes into admin.



The tough laws on teams going into administration on multiple occasions are to prevent teams from splashing out with money they can't afford, while knowing that if it all goes wrong they will only suffer a 10 point penalty.
A calculated gamble, if you will.


Thats just it there are NO laws against teams going into admin more than once. the only rules that the league have are for going into admin itself regardless of how many times its happened before.



Dundee fans weren't complaining when they were splashing ridiculous amounts of cash on transfers and/or wages. eg. Claudio Caniggia. Nor were they complaining when they were finishing 3rd in the SPL and going on a couple of forays into Europe.

No we were'nt, not sure what your point is with this.



Also, you should be pleased that the team is on a 15 game unbeaten run and have moved up to 7th. Normally, a 25 point deduction would see most teams involved in a relegation battle.


Im very Happy that we're on this run any fan of any team would be regardless of financial situation.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmo5
It doesnt mean that they can justify punishing the club again for something for which they have already been punished. Also the first time we where in admin we where in the SPL which is out of the jurisdiction of the SFL, yet they can use it as an "example" of one of our crimes.


I imagine the SFL must include the provision for dictating the punishment at their own discretion.

Being in the rule book doesn't necessarily make something right, of course, but the rules apply to all teams, and I'm sure that all clubs had to agree to these before the season started.


Originally posted by shmo5
Im sure the administration laws work exactly the same as other businesses in that an administrator is appointed and if the business can not be saved they are liquidated.


I believe a certain amount of leeway is given to football clubs who become insolvent because they are an integral part of the local community.

Portsmouth, for example, narrowly avoided being wound-up, and got away with only paying 10p in the pound to their creditors !

I can't see other businesses being let-off so easily, especially when football clubs have got many assets that could go a long way to paying off some of their debts, such as their ground ( if they own it outright ), training ground, players etc.


Originally posted by shmo5
As far as im aware we didnt even miss a payment of the agreed payment plan, which is legal and used by almost every other club in britain, it was only when Callum Melville resigned that HMRC decided to demand all their money at once.


I must confess that I don't know all of the ins and outs of this case in its entirety. I am going off articles that I've read on the situation, and it did mention spending money on player transfers that should have been earmarked to pay off HMRC.

I imagine HMRC decided to demand the money immediately after your previous chairman resigned due to the future of the club being very uncertain. They were probably trying to get what they could, seeing as they may have ended up with nothing if the club went bust.


Originally posted by shmo5
They could have but where deamed savable by the administrator, the exact same as it would have been for any business that goes into admin.


Fair enough. Perhaps they weren't as close to liquidation as I first thought. It's just that the reports that I read a the time did suggest that it may have been a possibility.


Originally posted by shmo5
Thats just it there are NO laws against teams going into admin more than once. the only rules that the league have are for going into admin itself regardless of how many times its happened before.


Maybe so, but the punishment that was handed out probably factored in it being the second time that they had gone into administration in 7 years.

Surely if this was that unfair, then after Dundee failed in their appeal, shouldn't they have taken legal action against the SFL ?


Originally posted by shmo5
No we were'nt, not sure what your point is with this.


The point being that Dundee have a capacity of about 12,000 and a fanbase that is largely confined to one smallish area. Revenue from gate receipts and merchandise is not going to be that large and, consequently, transfer fees and high wages are not going to be supported on the revenue that they generate.

A player such as Caniggia, who may have been a bit ''over the hill'' at the time, could still have probably gone to Qatar or the USA to earn a nice pay-packet, which strongly suggests that what Dundee were offering him must have been extremely financially lucrative.

This should have raised eyebrows amongst Dundee fans there and then, as Dundee were living well beyond their means, and the way that the club was being run was not financially sustainable.

Football fans never complain about the financial situation when times are good, and are happy to see their team succeeding regardless of the finances, yet as soon as - if you'll pardon my French - things go tits up, they start their hand-wringing and complaining about how ''hard done by'' they are when they get punished by the footballing authorities.

This is why I have limited sympathy for fans in these situations, as if they took a far more proactive approach to their club's finances, when things are going smoothly, then these financial meltdowns may be more preventable.


Originally posted by shmo5
Im very Happy that we're on this run any fan of any team would be regardless of financial situation.


It's only one season, after all.

If you keep hold of these players, then there is no reason why you shouldn't be favourites to gain promotion next season.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Mate you support the wrong team.

ARABS all the WAY!!!!


edit on 24-2-2011 by grantbeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

I imagine the SFL must include the provision for dictating the punishment at their own discretion.

Being in the rule book doesn't necessarily make something right, of course, but the rules apply to all teams, and I'm sure that all clubs had to agree to these before the season started.


The "rules" that the SFL have are so vague you could argue that they would even apply to administration, they dont even have specific rules saying you will be punished for entering adminisration.



I believe a certain amount of leeway is given to football clubs who become insolvent because they are an integral part of the local community.


in a legal sense no leeway is given to any buisness. A creditor has the same opption to accept or not, the CVA offered.
It just makes sense to accept because if the club pull through the creditors company would more than likely be given work from the club again.
in short no leeway is given legaly but a buisness decision is made by the creditors.



Portsmouth, for example, narrowly avoided being wound-up, and got away with only paying 10p in the pound to their creditors !


any buisness could potentially get this deal, Dundee are paying 6p.
In fact football clubs are at more of a disadvantage as they have to pay all football debts in full ie players who have been laid off etc.



I can't see other businesses being let-off so easily, especially when football clubs have got many assets that could go a long way to paying off some of their debts, such as their ground ( if they own it outright ), training ground, players etc.


Dundee dont own their stadium, rent training grounds and only had two players of any real value. Football clubs dont actually have as many assets as it seams, compaired to companies who have buildings, computers, and many other things including tvs furniture even the carpet gets sold on if a company is liquidated.



I must confess that I don't know all of the ins and outs of this case in its entirety. I am going off articles that I've read on the situation, and it did mention spending money on player transfers that should have been earmarked to pay off HMRC.


The money for Griffiths and Harkins the only two players any real money was spent on came from Melville (our benifactor) if we didnt buy them we would not have had the money anyway so it was not used instead of taxes as such. Alot of the media and other fans dont seem to grasp this.



I imagine HMRC decided to demand the money immediately after your previous chairman resigned due to the future of the club being very uncertain. They were probably trying to get what they could, seeing as they may have ended up with nothing if the club went bust.


Probably.




Maybe so, but the punishment that was handed out probably factored in it being the second time that they had gone into administration in 7 years.


But should it have been more than double the usuall amount? I dont believe the punishment should factor in previous administrations especially since the previous time was seven years ago, the best part of a decade ago. Again I ask who are the SFL to decide what an accpetable amount of time between going into administration is. This excuse is only to try and get away with giving out abnormally large punishments for something that didnt and wouldnt effect the league.



Surely if this was that unfair, then after Dundee failed in their appeal, shouldn't they have taken legal action against the SFL ?


Its the money aspect that stopped that, however there are rumors that legal action may be taken once we exit admin.



A player such as Caniggia, who may have been a bit ''over the hill'' at the time, could still have probably gone to Qatar or the USA to earn a nice pay-packet, which strongly suggests that what Dundee were offering him must have been extremely financially lucrative.


Im still not sure what a player who hasnt played for the club in 7 years has anything to do with the situation we are in now.



This should have raised eyebrows amongst Dundee fans there and then, as Dundee were living well beyond their means, and the way that the club was being run was not financially sustainable.


It did, alot of fans realised it but the fans didnt own the club and had no power at the time.



Football fans never complain about the financial situation when times are good, and are happy to see their team succeeding regardless of the finances, yet as soon as - if you'll pardon my French - things go tits up, they start their hand-wringing and complaining about how ''hard done by'' they are when they get punished by the footballing authorities.


Dundee fans wouldnt be comlaining about being punished if the punishment had not been over the top.



This is why I have limited sympathy for fans in these situations, as if they took a far more proactive approach to their club's finances, when things are going smoothly, then these financial meltdowns may be more preventable.


But if the fans dont own the club they have no power over how the money is spent.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Just incase anyone reading this is unsure the whole punishment was as follows;

25 point deduction
player registration embargo (including loans)
Forced to pay a bond to the SFL (yes thats right a club in administration is forced to pay more money to a non creditor)
Option to impose more punishments after March (thrown out at SFL appeal but i'll include it in the list anyway)





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join