Currently a team can manage their finances stay in business put up poor performances and get relegated. (from now on anyway). However a team can run into trouble trying to buy performance and in return may stay up depending on how well they were doing pre points deduction.

It just seems that in some circumstances a team can be reckless financially and be in a safe position and yet a team doing their 'best to act responsibly' and can go down and lose the higher payments from sponsors/tv. Not really much of an incentive to properly manage the business.

So instead of points deduction for going into Admin, how about a simple instant relegation. For CC1 teams i'm guessing then they are kicked out of the league and a space offered to one of the many high quality Teams pushing for CC1 spots.

agree, if a club cannot manage, or choose not to manage their finances accordingly they should be punished for it and not be able to play on the same level playing field as clubs that do.

football is the same, my team have struggled financially for over a decade and we have cut our cloth accordingly, having to endure seasons of rubbish because we can't afford to buy decent players. i am proud of the fact that my club hasn't cheated the system and gone into administration thus enabling the club to effectively "start again", yet clubs like leicester( just promoted to premier league as champions) and crystal palace were able to do this.

it's the same in RL, if a club can't compete because of lack of finances then they should be punished or at least made to go with what they have, in the case of bradford, regardless of what they achieved 10 years ago, if they aren't able to compete at the top level then tough they should have to find the level their finances allow.

While I can understand the argument if relegating them to CC1, we need to be careful as if we relegate them, no one will buy them. As much as some people would quite like that, Bradford, Wakey would cease to exist. Don't care what anyone says, it's not good for the sport.

For me increased points deduction is way forward. Minimum of 8. The inconsistencies it previous punishments is the main problem. Clear rules from the off. No deduction in sky money. Simples.

They say that sports clubs are now business's .
Well Woolworth , Comet, Blockbuster etc went to wall.
Time for all sports clubs to the same way if they fail.
There is no reason why they shouldn't .
No "sacred cows" etc, realism.
If you want to start again then surely you can but as a new business.
RL/SL have got it so wrong but still not as bad as say soccer but are getting there.
Why do we have a system that rewards failure?

I think with P&R coming back then a large points deduction is the right way to go but clubs must not be allowed to work this to there advantage,IE,if a points deduction puts you in a relegation position then its implemented there and then,if not then it carries over to the next season.

Under licensing it should have been instant relegation to championship 1

i see what you're saying but like it or not if clubs, like businesses,cannot operate under their limitations then tough titty im afraid.
what would be bad for the sport is if the powers that be, kept allowing certain clubs to throw money around they haven't got when other clubs are running sensibly and the powers that be keep letting them in order to keep certain historic clubs in the top echelons, no other sport does it, why should rugby league.
of course i wouldn't like to see any clubs going under ,be they bradford or blackpool but thats life im afraid.

when huddersfield were struggling financially no one was willing to save us other than generous local businessmen time and time again, no one batted an eyelid that a great name of the past could be gone forever, it shouldn't be any different now.

People need to understand the difference between administration and liquidation first and foremost.

Administration a club is insolvent but it still operates under an administrator who tries to run it to the best of his or her ability, with the intention of having the creditor's best interests at heart. If he can't find the capital then it gets wound up. Therefore, automatic relegation would be unfair in the sense - IMO - until such a point the company is wound up.

If a club is liquidated or wound up then it will cease to exist and a new company will begin. Under this instance, it should restart at the bottom as a new club.

In terms of the penalty, there should ALWAYS be a penalty for going into administration irrespective of what happens post-admin. This is because no buyer is ever going to come in and pay ALL the club's debts otherwise they could have just done that before admin and saved such a penalty in the process.

My understanding is that the penalty is being doubled under P and R anyway to a maximum of 12 points (I believe).

It's very easy to say that all businesses that go into administration bring it on themselves. It's often not the case.

Let's throw a scenario out there: A club is running prudently, doesn't have any unmanageable debts and is paying its suppliers, players, staff and tax bills on time. The club isn't swimming in cash (like most in RL), but the budgets are balanced and everything is hunky-dory.

Then, midway through the season, that cub's main sponsor goes bust - an event completely beyond the club's control - leaving the club short of a significant cash investment.

Upon hearing the news, the club's bank gets jittery and calls in the club's overdraft, so the club can't borrow to cover the shortfall for the remainder of the season. The club can't move players on, because other clubs aren't interested in them or because they are up to cap. They club's debts grow, it can't attract new investment so it has little option call in the administrators.

Are we really going to start throwing clubs down to C1 for that?

Whilst I understand that administration looks like an "easy way out" sometimes, it is a perfectly legitimate debt recovery mechanism and it is very often a last resort. If a legal process can help to save jobs and important community assets, it should be accepted. By all means have sporting sanctions, but make them fair and proportionate - not spiteful.

Firstly, i was suggesting instant relegation down 1 level. not all the way to CC1 i'm not sure that came across.

I mentioned CC1 teams as where would they be relegated too? i'm more than happy for a Superleague team to be dropped to Championship.

Secondly in my view a club is 2 parts. playing part and business part. and yes the two are very heavily dependent on each other however they are different.

IF you protect their position to get the creditors the best possible return if the ship starts to flood then the whole thing is pointless, teams going down by playing buy the rules put their creditors at risk, creditors in sports teams know this before hand. Why should a team go down and suffer and their creditors suffer and yet a team poorly managed gets ring fenced to save some other people cash?

It seems its perfectly acceptable to watch teams go to the wall if they play badly and serves them right but mustn't let get relegated and lose their sales value via going under thats just no sporting.......

Very good point

Absolutely. There are examples of chronic mismanagement at clubs and they should be viewed by the sport as such. But having a 'one size fits all' sanction is not the way to go.

The Ken Davey example is exactly what happened at Gretna FC a few years ago and that was a very similar model to many RL clubs today - everything is fine as long as one man's benevolence can continue.

Administration, in many cases, is not something that is deliberately planned for for months in advance - even stable businesses can have the run pulled from under their feet.

All I'd do is increase the points deduction to 8 points. If the club finishes 8 points ahead of the clubs in the relegation zone then they're obviously much stronger on the field and so deserve to stay up.

The downside of P&R I'm afraid.

But aren't they much stronger on the field because they're paying out for a squad of players they can't afford,were as the clubs below have lesser quality squads because they're probably living within there means?

This.