I don’t agree with this proposal to dock points; it seems to be based on a false premise. The idea is that teams won’t recklessly overspend and run the risk of insolvency proceedings being needed if they know it will really hurt them. So far, so obvious.But there’s a crucial flaw here – it assumes that the people making the decisions regarding spending actually give a stuff about potential negative effects.
Recent history demonstrates that a great many clubs have been brought to the edge of extinction by owners who didn’t; they asset-stripped the clubs of their land, they signed contracts and subsidised them to the hilt, then withdrew the funding making administration the only option (if that; the people themselves who created the mess have long since buggered off by this point and generally don’t care whether the club lives or dies). Yet it is exactly these people who are entrusted with following these rules. Can you see the flaw yet?
Quick quiz question: Which if these heinous crimes has been subject to a displinary hearing by the game’s authorites leading to action being taken?
– Burning down a stand in an insurance fraud
– Hiving the ground off for a personal profit of several million based on evicting the club and building houses instead
– Saying that asylum seekers should be sent home unless they were good at sport
– Using the wrong toilet at half-time