Why should we put up with this any longer?

By Neil Ravenscroft
February 11 2003

Ipswich Town yesterday became yet another club to go into administration, so the question is asked again, why are the League not acting against these clubs?

I know that this tends to be a well worn subject on this site with all Walsall fans, but the news this week of Ipswich going into "temporary administration" while they restructure their debts, just brings the stupidity of the system and the lack of bottle of the Football League and the FA in tackling the problem of football clubs whose debts are running out of control.

Ipswich, for some reason I could never work out, have had a reputation for being a well run club in recent years, probably because they had a media friendly, charismatic chairman. Mind you, the media also thought the same about Leeds, for similar reasons, until the events of this January! History, however, does not tend to bear this out. The great Ipswich side of the early eighties was broken up because the club overstretched itself and was forced to sell or release on the cheap some of its prize assets in the shape (nowadays large shape) of Alan Brazil, Paul Mariner, Arnold Muhren, etc.

It appears now that the club did not learn that lesson and has managed to lumber itself with massive debts by bringing in high earners to try and buy Premiership success, some of whom are now languishing in the reserves. (A similar scenario to Oldham now in the second division, who have just announced they are losing £50,000 per week, in their attempt to gain promotion). The difference between now and then, you see, is that they cannot get rid of these players as easily, with the collapse of the transfer market and the growing power of the football agent. The club now want to restructure that debt and voluntary administration for a temporary period will give them the chance to do that, probably by coming to an agreement to pay off some of their creditors at a small percentage of the debt owed.
The model for anyone making the so called "promised land" of the Premiership should be Charlton and (I hate to say it) the Albion, who have managed without mortgaging their futures. Bolton too seemed to have managed by using short term contracts well.

The problem is, why should they be allowed to do that? Of course, we do not know yet how bad the situation is at Ipswich, but even taking them out of the equation, the first division now has Derby, Leicester, Bradford, Coventry, Sheffield Wednesday and, probably, several others, in a position where their debts are such they cannot guarantee the future of the football club. Even the consortium taking over at Leicester will leave the club with massive debts. I always thought that, at the beginning of the season, all clubs had to give the League a guarantee that they will be able to fulfil their fixtures. I can only assume that, considering the financial position some of these clubs are in, either someone has been economical with the truth, or the rules are not being applied.

So why are clubs who cut their cloth according to their resources, like Walsall and several others, being penalised by the League letting businesses gamble with their money in a way that would not be allowed in any other form of commerce? Why when a club like Walsall can make a profit for 11 years on the trot, gain two promotions and expand its ground, do the powers that be not insist on sound financial management and take action against those clubs who are not as prudent, as the Italian authorities did with Fiorentina? Answers on a postcard, please, addressed to the Football League Management Committee.