It is no secret that the football authorities of this land are as useful as chocolate dildos but yesterday’s announcement that the Football League were deducting 10 points from Plymouth Argyle was further confirmation of that fact.
The penalty was an automatic one, foisted on the Pilgrims after they appointed administrators to help them out of the financial mire.
But why?
Penalising those unable to run within their means can be interpreted as the Football League protecting the clubs from themselves (and potentially lethal short-termism) and maintaining fair competition.
On neither front is the penalty satisfactory.
After dropping to the third tier last summer, Argyle have endured a torrid campaign but they had managed to garner 33 points, and a 2-point cushion from the drop zone.
The deduction sees them rooted to the bottom of the table, eight points from safety: a position that their exploits on the pitch do not warrant.
The Football League might argue that a club that spends more than it can afford deserves to be relegated more than its rivals but, in terms of on-pitch achievements, that does not wash.
Against a backdrop of unpaid wages, is it not more likely that the players’ performances and morale have dropped and that, if anything, the financial crisis has probably cost the club points?
With the chances of survival now greatly reduced, do not expect morale to surge. A club that needed no help hampering themselves but got it anyway may well limp to the line, and find themselves in League 2 next season.
The biggest reason to query that is not the club’s potential to climb out of the bottom four, but its future existence at all. The last thing that will attract much-needed investors is League 2 football.
As the people responsible for the fiasco are replaced by the administrators, it will be the players, the manager and, above all, the fans, none of whom had anything to do with it, that will suffer the most.
The integrity of the league suffers too. In terms of strength, a weaker rival will most likely survive while a stronger one fails.
This is not an issue that will just affect Plymouth: the teams that play them, especially if they are doomed at the end of the season, stand to benefit from their demotivation.
Finally, the penalty is a joke because it shows just how much the authorities still have their head in the sand.
Plymouth might be in worse financial peril than those around them but there are many clubs who are not far behind. The League should be looking to nip the problem in the bud, not punish the teams that have already hit the wall.
What if Plymouth were to go down by one point and the club that survived in their place announced administration in August or hung on by a thread, is there truly that much difference? Not ten points-worth, that is for sure.
If the authorities are serious about bringing clubs back from the brink, they need to impose minimum financial requirements at the start of a league season, making promotion an impossibility, or withdrawing revenue until the clubs have shown themselves to be watertight.
Stopping clubs from getting too close to the precipice would be a genuine service to the league and fans. Waiting for them to be clinging on and then prying their fingertips free, is no service whatsoever.
